RAGHBIR SINGH Vs. RESHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by Raghbir Singh (hereinafter described as 'the petitioner') directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, dated 3. 9. 1982 and the Appellate Authority dated 13. 6. 1983 respectively. The learned Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 Kuldeep Singh. The same was affirmed by the appellate authority. Hence, the present revision petition.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that Resham Singh respondent No. 1 had filed a petition for eviction with respect to the shop in dispute. The ground of eviction with which the present revision petition is concerned pertains to the fact alleged that property had been let out to Raghbir Singh but he had sublet the same to Kuldeep Singh. The other ground of eviction taken up was that the petitioner had failed to pay the arrears of rent from 1. 8. 1980 at the rate of Rs. 70.00 p. m.

(3.) THE learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and held that the property in question had been sublet by the petitioner to respondent No. 2 because petitioner himself was a proclaimed offender and it was respondent No. 2 who was carrying on the business in his own right. The ground of eviction that payment of rent had not been made or that on the first date of hearing, the rent was not tendered, the findings returned by the Rent Controller were that Shri R. G. Kohli was representing the petitioner as a counsel and he tendered the entire arrears of rent on the first date of hearing. Thus, the order of eviction was only passed with respect to the ground that the property had been sublet. An appeal was filed and the Appellate Authority approved the findings of the Rent Controller that the said property had been sublet. It was held that it was respondent No. 2 who was carrying on the business independently in the property in question. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a stand that respondent No. 2 was merely a licensee. After dismissal of the appeal, the present revision petition had been filed.