KEWAL KRISHAN Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's revision petition against whom the ejectment application of the landlord was dismissed by the Rent Controller, but eviction order passed by the Appellate Authority in appeal.

(2.) THE landlords Amar Nath, Sat Pal and Joginder Pal filed ejectment application against Bhag Mal, Kewal Krishan and Sat Dev Chaman Lal, alleging that Bhag Mal was the tenant and he has sublet the same to Kewal Krishan and Sat Dev Chaman Lal. However, in the amended application, it is pleaded in the alternative that in case respondent No. 2 is held to be the tenant along with respondents No. 1, then respondents No. 1 and 2 or respondent No. 2, had sublet and/or transferred the rights under the lease o respondent No. 3 without the written consent of the applications. In the written statement filed on behalf of Bhag Mal it was stated that Bhag Mal had taken the premises in dispute on rent not in his individual capacity but for and on behalf of firms M/s Krishan Cotton Rice and Oil Mills and M/s Krishan Rice Association, and Bhag Mal and Kewal Krishan being partners therein, had been doing the business before the execution of the rent note by Bhag Mal. Later on the said firm was dissolved on 23.1.1959 whereby all the assets and liabilities fell to the lot of Kewal Krishan. Thus the question of sub-letting by Bhag Mal, as such did not arise. As regards Sat Dev Chaman Lal, it was stated that thought he did the husking business in the disputed premises for a period of 3 years, but it was denied that he was the sub-tenant under Kewal Krishan. The learned Rent Controller has held that the landlords have failed to prove the sub-letting, as alleged. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said findings of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that from the evidence on the record, it was amply proved that Kewal Krishan had sublet the premises to Sat Dev Chaman Lal without the written consent of the landlords. In view of this finding, eviction order passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this petition. The learned Appellate Authority has discussed the entire evidence in detail and has given a firm finding on the point that Bhag Mal had taken the premises on rent on behalf of a firm on which Kewal Krishan was also a partner and thereof, Kewal Krishan was a tenant in the premises in dispute and not Bhag Mal and that Kewal Krishan had sublet the premises in dispute to Sat Dev Chaman Lal vide lease deed Ex. A.3 which was duly acted upon. Not only that, it has been further found that during the period Sat Dev Chaman Lal had occupied the premises in dispute, Kewal Krishan had shifted his business from the premises in dispute. On these findings the subletting is amply proved and no meaningful argument could be raised on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the said finding which is based on the evidence brought on the record. In this view of the matter, the revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs.