- (1.)Pir Chand landlord brought an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against his tenant Firm Narsi Ram Bidhi Chand, proprietors of M/s Parkash Chand Dev Raj, on the ground that it has sub-let the portion of the premises to respondent Nos. 2 to 5. A few of the sub-lettees did not contest the ejectment application, Firm Narsi Ram Bidhi Chand tenant admitted the averments made in the plaint and supported the case of the landlord. But Ram Lal Mangat Rai and Tarsem Chand and brothers respondents Nos. 2 and 3, the other alleged sub-tenants contested the application and put forth the plea that they were themselves tenants under the landlords and they have not taken the premises from Firm Narsi Ram Bidhi Chand tenant. On the pleadings of the parties the learned Rent Controller framed as may as 9 issues. The learned Rent Controller while deciding issues Nos. 1,2,3 and 8 against the landlord, came to conclusion that tenancy in favour of Firm Narsi Ram Bidhi Chand had not been proved. The learned Rent Controller recorded a finding that Ram Lal Mangat Rai and Tarsem Chand & brothers were tenants under the landlord. Consequently the ejectment petition was dismissed. On appeal filled by the landlord, the learned Appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on issues Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and came to the conclusion that the landlord has been able to substantiate from the documentary evidence that the premises in question were leased out to Firm Narsi Ram Bidhi Chand, proprietor of M/s. Parkash Chand Dev Raj, that Ram Lal Mangat Rai are not the direct tenants of Pir Chand landlord and that the tenant respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in question to respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The Sub-tenants Ram Lal Mangat Rai have come in revision.
(2.)After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is no merit in this petitions. It is no doubt true that a finding has been recorded by the Rent Controller and also the Appellate Authority that M/s. Ram Lal Mangat Rai were in possession of the premises for the last about 20 years but that finding is not inconsistent with the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority when it was held that M/s. Ram Lal Mangat Rai were, in fact, sub-tenants under the Firm Narsi Ram Bidhi Chand. In this connection reference may be appropriately made to paragraph 8 at the order of the Appellate Authority wherein it was observed as follow :-
"The circumstance that Ram Lal Mangat Rai are shown to be in occupation of the shop since about 20 years is not inconsistent with these findings as it appears that at the time Ram Lal Mangat Rai entered into partnership with Narsi Ram Bidhi Chand, and both of them formed Firm Parkash Chand Dev Raj, Ram Lal Mangat surrendered the tenancy rights in favour of the newly constituted firm who became the tenant instead of them and on the leaving of the said firm in 1963 by Ram Lal and Mangat Rai, the tenancy continued with Parkash Chand Dev Raj (the concern thereafter exclusively owned by Narsi Ram Bidhi Chand) and Ram Lal Mangat Rai who continued their possession in part of the tenancy premises accepted the status of a sub-tenant under tenant Pakash Chand Dev Raj. The learned Rent Controller appears to have been largely influencd by the aforesaid circumstance (the occupation of Ram Lal Mangat (Rai) since about 20 years) in coming to the conclusion that they were direct tenants under Pir Chand but he failed to take a note of the surrender of the tenancy rights by Ram Lal Mangat Rai in favour of Parkash Chand Dev Raj and after leaving the said firm the acceptance of the status of a sub-tenant under the said tenant and this failure on his part has led him in arriving at a wrong conclusion."

No exception can be taken to the above-mentioned finding.

(3.)For the reasons recorded above, I find that there is not merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.