M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.)THIS petition filed by landlord-petitioner under sub-section 6 of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 1.12.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Karnal reversing the findings of facts recorded by the Rent Controller, Karnal. The Rent Controller in his order dated 14.6.1983 came to the conclusion that the tenant-respondent No. 1 had not sub-let the premises to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and, therefore, the application was dismissed on that score. Further on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.5.1978 to 31.4.1981 the ejectment of the tenant-respondents was ordered. However, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding holding that the tenant-respondents were not in arrears of rent as it is proved on record that the whole payment of rent has been made and the landlord-petitioner has failed to prove that the rent was due to him. The findings of facts on the question of sub-letting were affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord- petitioner has filed the instant petition.
(2.)ON the basis of rent note dated 30.12.1969 and according to the averments made in the ejectment petition the demised premises were rented out to tenant-respondent No. 1 Salig Ram (who has died during the pendency of the instant petition) @ Rs. 35/- p.m. It has further been averred in the ejectment petition that Salig Ram, tenant-respondent No. 1 sublet the same to one Om Parkash who further rented out the aforesaid premises to respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In the written statement filed by tenant-respondent No. 1 Salig Ram, the fact of tenancy has been admitted. However, in the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 the claim of the landlord- petitioner has been resisted asserting that respondent No. 3 is a direct tenant under the landlord-petitioner. The landlord-petitioner also filed replication. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
"1. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in the petition ? OPA. 2. Whether the application is bad for mis-joinder of parties ? OPR (3 and 4) 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form ? OPR. 4. Whether the petition is malafide and is not maintainable for the reasons mentioned in the preliminary objections ? OPR. 5. Relief."

On Issue No. 1, the Rent Controller returned the finding that no case for ejectment on the ground of sub-letting was made out and declined the ejectment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on that basis. However, on the ground of non- payment of rent it was held that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not paid the arrears of rent to the petitioner from 1.5.1978 to 30.4.1981. It was further held that even arrears of rent has not been tendered after notice of the ejectment petition. The ground of material impairment of the utility of the demised premises also did not find favour with the Rent Controller.

(3.)THE learned Appellate Authority, Karnal reversed the findings even with regard to arrears of rent and allowed the appeal filed by the tenant- respondents 3 and 4 holding that they were not liable to be ejected on the ground that they were in arrears of rent. However, the appeal filed by the landlord-petitioner was dismissed. The views of the Appellate Authority with regard to arrears of rent are as under :-
"Further question to be seen is whether the appellants were in arrears of rent or had paid rent till August, 1981 as stated by him. Sh. Shanti Sarup had claimed arrears of rent for the period 1.5.78 to 31.4.81 @ Rs. 30/- p.m. alongwith interest. The appellants in their written statement had stated that they were direct tenants under Shanti Sarup and had paid rent till 31.8.81. The initial burden of this issue was on the respondents No. 1 to 3. AW 1 Bhagwat Sarup respondent No. 2 did not state in his statement at all the Salig Ram respondent No. 4 was in arrears of rent for the period 1.5.78 to 31.4.81. He did not plead the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent in his statement at all. RW 1 Krishan Dutt appellant in his statement categorically stated that they had already paid rent till August, 1981 and no receipt was issued by Shanti Sarup predecessor in interest of respondent No. 1 to 3. No suggestion was put up to RW 1 that infact he had not paid rent upto August, 1981. In such circumstances, the version of RW 1 had to be presumed to be correct. It has been stated in Ganpat Rai Khosla v. Kishan Lal and others, 1985 PLR 349 that a party should put to his opponents witness so much of the case as concerns that witness and on failure to do so, it shall be presumed that the witnesses account had been accepted. Therefore, in view of the unrebutted statement of RW 1 it shall be presumed that rent had been paid upto August, 1981 and since AW 1 had not stated anything about the rent due so, it shall be presumed that no rent was due."