VIJAY SINGH Vs. SATISH KUMAR KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition. Vijay Singh (petitioner herein) sought ejectment of the respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground that respondent No. 1 had sub-let the premises to his son, Satish Kumar, respondent No. 2. Rent was claimed at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. Respondents in their writen statement denied both the grounds. However, on the first date of hereing, respondent, Satish Kumar, tendered the rent at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition with the finding that there was no sub-letting. As a matter of fact, the Rent Controller found that Satish Kumar is a tenant and not Om Parkash as stated by the landlord in his ejectment petition. The rate of rent was found to be Rs. 450/- per month. Since the rent had been tendered on the first date of hearing, the tenant was not held liable to be ejected. Satish Kumar filed an appeal challenging the finding of the Rent Controller with regard to rate of rent. Landlord filed cross-objections in order to challenge the finding with regard to sub-letting. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal of the tenant and held the rent to be Rs. 200/- per month. Cross-objections filed by the landlord were dismissed. Land-lord has now come in revision before this Court.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the revision petition. Ms. Alka Sarin, counsel for the landlord has contended that the appellate Authority has not properly appreciated the evidence with regard to rate of rent. I find no force in this argument. There is no documentary evidence on record to prove the rate of rent. The landlord as well as tenants produced only oral evidence and on appreciation of the same, the appellate Authority has returned a finding of fact with regard to rate of rent. This Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate the evidence. Accordingly, the finding of the appellate Authority that the rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 200/- per month, calls for no interference. So far as ground of sub-letting is concerned, I find that the Authorities below rightly found that the premises were let out to Satish Kumar alone and not to his father. The father was in police and therefore, there was no occasion for him to take shop on rent for carrying on the business. It has come on record that the son had been carrying on the business right from the inception of tenancy. In this view of the matter, this finding also calls for no interference.

(3.) AS a result thereof, the revision petition is dismissed. No Costs.