WARYAM SINGH Vs. PARKASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE landlords Prakash Chand and Kishore Chand, sought the ejectment of their tenant Waryam Singh, inter alia on the ground that he had sublet the premises, in dispute, without their written consent. According to the landlord, the premises, consisting of four shops and store, were let out in the year 1955 on a monthly rent of Rs. 115/-. It was pleaded that the tenant had ceased to occupy the same continuously for a period of four months without any reasonable cause as in fact he had shifted from Ludhiana for about 1-/1/2 years before the filing of the eviction application, after subletting the same to M/s. Punjab Commercial Enterprises. The ejectment application was filed on August 14, 1973. In the written statement, both the grounds of ejectment were controverted. The learned Rent Controller found that in the absence of Waryam Singh, Mohinder Singh and others had been carrying on the business in the premises, in dispute, in partnership with each other and, therefore, there was no question of Waryam Singh ceasing to occupy the premises. It was also found that the landlords had failed to prove the allegation that the tenant had sublet the premises, in question, as Mohinder Singh and Mohd. Idris Qureshi were in occupation of the premises as the partners of the firm known as Punjab Commercial Enterprises. In view of this finding, the ejectment application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of the case as admitted by Waryam Singh, RW-3 and his nephew Mohinder Singh, RW-7 clearly go to show that Waryam Singh had nothing to do with the firm known as Punjab Commercial Enterprises, on August 14, 1973, when the application for eviction was made against him. That being so an interference of subletting could be reasonably drawn unless that tenant was in a position to show some other relationship between him and the subtenant. Consequently, the eviction order was passed. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has come up in revision to this Court. During the pendency of this revision petition, Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 1819-CII and 2874-CII of 1979, have been filed on behalf of the petitioner purporting to be under Order 41 Rule 7, Code of Civil Procedure, whereby he wanted to place on the record the copies of partnership and dissolution deeds of the firm Punjab Commercial Enterprises.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on the record, I do not find any merit in this revision petition.