SIRI CHAND Vs. JOGINDER PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order of concurrence rendered by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority vide which the petitioners who were styled by the landlord to be the tenant and sub-tenant, were ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute.

(2.) The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction of the petitioners under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , on the grounds of non-payment of rent and that the premises have been sublet by the original tenant Siri Chand to his nephew Rajinder Kumar. Inasmuch 'as arrears of rent were tendered in Court, the ground of non-payment of rent was not pressed into service by the respondent-landlord.

(3.) In so far as the finding with regard to subletting of the demised premises by the tenant to his nephew Rajinder Kumar the same has been based on both oral as well as documentary evidence. With the assistance of Mr. Ajay Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioners, I have gone through the finding on the aforesaid issue recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority and find no infirmity whatsoever in it. It may be mentioned here that besides relying on oral evidence, the Appellate Authority also relied upon entries recorded in Form-H in the Register of Establishments maintained under the Shop and Commercial Establishments Act. It has been recorded in the said entry that Rajinder Kumar is in possession of the premises. This entry was continuously repeated for the subsequent years. In the Municipal House Tax entry, it is Rajinder Kumar who has been shown to be in occupation of the demised premises. Coupled with this documentary evidence, the respondent-landlord has proved his plea also by oral evidence. The witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent-landlord had been believed and for good reasons.