V.S.AGGARWAL,J - (1.) LEGAL representatives of Summat Parshad Jain - petitioners have filed the present revision petition directed against the judgment of the learned Rent Controller, Rohtak dated November 8, 1979 and of the appellate authority, Rohtak dated April 3, 1981. The learned Rent Controller had dismissed the petition for eviction. The said order was upheld by the appellate authority.
(2.) THE facts alleged are that respondent No. 1 Murari Lal Jain was stated to be the tenant in the property. A rent note is stated to have been executed dated December 29, 1951. Petitioners claimed ejectment on the ground that arrears of rent have not been paid and that respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises and drawn his tenancy rights to Sham Lal Jain - respondent No. 2, who is in actual possession of the suit premises. There is no dispute that on the first date of hearing, the arrears of rent had been tendered and the sole suriving ground of the eviction was that if the property has been sublet by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. In the joint written statement, the said fact had been denied. It was denied that Sham Lal was in sole occupation of the shop in dispute. Plea raised was that originally Murari Lal, Tara Chand and Bhiku Ram were partners and were carrying on business in the name of Murari Lal Tara Chand in the shop in dispute. Bhiku Ram retired and Sham Lal joined as the partner. Partnership deed was executed on August 25, 1969. Thereafter, Tara Chand also retired and another partnership deed was executed between Murari Lal and Sham Lal. They are carrying on business in the partnership firm in the name and style of Murari Lal Tara Chand. Murari Lal had opened a shop in Haryana Cloth Market, Rohtak in partnership with Manphool Singh, Hira Lal and Tara Chand. Subsequently, Manphool Singh retired from partnership and Jagdish Parshad joined the said partnership concern. Partnership deed was executed on April 1, 1971. Thus, it was asserted that Murari Lal is a partner in the said partnership concern and there is no subletting of the premises.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and held that property in question had not been sublet. The petition was dismissed. The petitioners preferred an appeal. The learned appellate authority scanned through the evidence and concluded that respondent No. 1 continued to be a partner and thus it cannot be termed that there is subletting of the property in question. The appeal failed and hence, the present revision petition.;