SARUP CHAND Vs. SUKHWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlord's revision petition in whose favour the eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller, but the same was set aside in appeal, by the Appellate Authority.

(2.) SARUP Chand, landlord, sought the ejectment of his tenant Sukhwant Rai inter alia on the ground that he had sublet the shop, in dispute, to Jangir Singh, respondent No. 2. without his consent, in writing. The other pleas taken by him were given up and, therefore, the same need not be enumerated here. In the written statement, tenant Sukhwant Rai denied that he had sublet the premises. It was pleaded that he and Jangir Singh, respondents had been doing business in the shop for the last about 10 or 12 years in partnership. The learned Rent Controller found that the landlord had failed to prove the alleged partnership between Jangir Singh, respondent, and Sukhawant Rai, tenant particularly when no partnership deed had been proved; neither Jangir Singh, respondent, had appeared in the witness-box. On that basis, it was held that the tenant had sublet the premises to Jangir Singh, respondent. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. It appears the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that a reading of the statement of Sukhwant Rai, tenant as a whole would lead to only one conclusion that while Jangir Singh, respondent, worked in the shop, he himself retained the judicial possession thereof. Jangir Singh, respondent, as a matter of fact worked under his supervision as his eye-sight was weak. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order passed against him was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the landlord has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant evidence on the record.