- (1.) Petitioner-tenant's ejectment had been sought by respondent No. 1, landlord, inter-alia, on the ground the tenant had sub-let half portion of the rented shop to respondent No. 2, Hamid Hussain, after effecting partition of the rented shop by constructing a wall in the middle. The tenant, as also the alleged sub-tenant, contested the petition. However, before both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, the landlord's version prevailed and an order of ejectment stands against the tenant petitioner.
(2.) Mr. A. N. Mittal, counsel for the tenant-petitioner, has argued that neither the landlord, while appearing as his own witness, nor any of his witnesses, has stated that the tenant-petitioner had parted with the legal and exclusive possession of any portion of the premises that were let out to him, to Hamid Hussain, respondent No. w, much less for consideration. It has been stressed by the learned counsel that both the Courts below have misread the petitioner's evidence and that there is no sufficient material on the record for them to come to a conclusion that the tenant had parte with the possession, much less legal possession, of half or any portion of the shop in question to Hamid Hussain, respondent No. 2, and that the findings of the Courts below in this regard are clearly lacking in propriety.
(3.) In my opinion, there is merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner.;