V.S.AGGARWAL,J - (1.) BY this common judgment both the revision petitions namely Civil Revision Nos. 1631 and 1632 of 1982 can conveniently be disposed of together. Both the revision petitions are directed against the same order of the Appellate Authority.
(2.) THE revision petition has been preferred by Tej Ram and others directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot dated 27.2.1982. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 29.10.1979. Instead the petition for eviction was dismissed. The relevant facts are that petitioners had filed an eviction application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against the respondents with respect to the property in dispute. The sole surviving ground of eviction has been as to if the premises in question had been sublet by Parshotam Dass to Sham Lal respondent. It had been pleaded that Parshotam Dass had handed over a portion of the premises to respondent No. 2 and has transferred the lease right to him. In the joint written statement filed, the fact has been denied. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 had started the business of Pan, Birri and Cigarette etc. in small portion of the shop in partnership with Sham Lal. This has been done only to raise the income. It is denied that front portion has been divided into two parts. Plea was raised that small portion of the shop where business of Pan, Birri etc. was being run is demarcated by wooden almirahs and planks so that these goods could be stored in almirahs. It was of temporary nature.
(3.) THE learned Rent Controller had framed the issues with respect to the said controversy and concluded that the partnership deed so produced cannot be taken to be a genuine document and accordingly an order of eviction was passed. Two appeals were preferred, one by Parshotam Dass and other by Sham Lal, the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. The learned Appellate Authority held that it cannot be termed that partnership or partnership deed were begus documents and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been preferred. During the pendency of the revision petitions, Parshotam Dass respondent had died and his legal representatives have been brought on the record.;