(1.) This revision petition by an unsuccessful sub. tenant arises out of the following facts :
(2.) Pujara Ram filed an application under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act for the ejectment of the present Petitioner and one Jodha Ram from the demised premises. It was alleged in the application that he was the owner of the shop in dispute and he let out the same in favour of Jodha Ram at a Rent of Rs. 20/- per mensem vide rent note dated 4th October, 1968, which is exhibit A/10 for a period of 11 months. The grounds mentioned in the application were that he failed to pay the rent with effect from 4th January, 1969, and that he also sublet the shop in dispute in favour of Balak Singh, the present petitioner, without his permission. It was further alleged that on these grounds, he is liable to be evicted from the demised premises Jodha Ram tenant vide his written statement admitted the claim of the landlord Pujara Ram. The application was, however, contested by the present petitioner. The allegations in the application were controverted and it was alleged that the present petitioner was a direct tenant of the shop in dispute under pujara Ram at a rent of Rs. 60/-per mensem; that rent note Exhibit A/10 was a fictitious document and that he had paid the arrears of rent to the later for the period ending 30th December, 1969, vide receipts duly executed by him. It was also alleged that Jodha Ram is the near relative of Pujara Ram and he colluded with the letter in order to secure his petitioners eviction. The parties contested on the following issues :
(3.) The learned Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the landlord and held that Balak Singh was the sub-tenant of Jodha Ram and that he was not a direct tenant under Pujara Ram. Consequently, the application was allowed. Dissatisfied by the order of the Rent Controller, Balak Singh, Sub-tenant, filed the appeal. The lower appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.