NITYA NAND Vs. GULLU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlords' petition, whose application for ejectment has been dismissed by both the Authorities below.

(2.) LANDLORD Nitya Nand sought the ejectment of his tenant Gullu Ram from the shop in dispute on the ground of subletting to Matu Ram respondent No. 2. According to the landlord, the premises were let out to Gullu Ram at the rate of Rs. 470 per annum in the year 1963. Before filing the ejectment application, Gullu Ram on oral agreement had agreed to enhance the rent to Rs. 2,500 per annum. Gullu Ram has not paid the rent since February, 1969 and furthermore he has sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No. 2 Matu Ram. In the written statement filed on behalf of Matu Ram, he pleaded that the shop was taken by him on the rent of Rs. 600 per annum in the year 1961 from one Raj Kumaru, who had let out the shop in dispute on behalf of the landlord. According to him, he had never been the sub-tenant of Gullu Ram, as alleged. On trial the learned Rent Controller found that Matu Ram is the direct tenant of the shop in dispute from the landlord at the annual rent of Rs. 600 per annum. In view of that finding, the landlord's petition was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the said finding of the Rent Controller and thus maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this contention. On the appreciation of the entire evidence, oral as well as documentary, a firm finding has been given by the Appellate Authority that "For all the above reasons, I have reached to the conclusion that Ex. A.W. 1 is not believable and I disbelieve this piece of evidence. In substance, it will be correct to say that the evidence produced by the appellants does not prove that the tenancy started from Gullu Ram Respondent No. 1 and later on it devolved in faovur of Respondent No. 2 Matu Ram. The statement of Respondent No. 2 Matu Ram is more believable inasmuch as he says that he directly took the shop in dispute from Ram Kumar on behalf of the appellants." I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of two Authorities below as to be interfered with in revision petition. Consequently, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.