- (1.) The tenant-petitioner has filed this revision against the order of the Appellate Authority, Bhatinda dated 27th September, 1977, whereby the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application for ejectment has been set aside and the tenant has been ordered to be ejected from the rented premises, which is a shop situated in Bhatinda.
(2.) The landlord filed an application for ejectment against Chaman Lal tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of subletting. The allegations are that the premises were rented out to Chaman Lal vide rent note dated 3rd February, 1961. According to the rent note the tenancy was to begin from 1st January, 1961 for one year i.e. upto December, 1961. The annual rent fixed in the rent note was Rs. 1200/-. It has been alleged in the application that Chaman Lal had subsequently sublet the premises to M/s. Bhushan Drug House, Bhatinda, without any written consent of the landlord. Certain other grounds were also taken but they do not exist any more. The application was contested on behalf of M/s. Bhushan Drug House through Prem Kumar. The plea taken was that Chaman Lal took the premises as a partner on behalf of Bhushan Drug House, Bhatinda and therefore, the tenant was the firm and not Chaman Lal in his individual capacity. It is not disputed that Chaman Lal is no more partner of the firm M/s. Bhushan Drug House, Bhatinda. On the pleading of the parties the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether Chaman Lal sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No. 2 OPA. 2. Whether the respondents have effected material alterations which imparted the value and utility of the shop in dispute OPA. 3. Whether respondent No. 2 is a tenant in respect of the shop in dispute of the applicant OPA. 4. Whether the shop in dispute is a part of the residential building of the applicant If so, its effect OPA. 5. If issue No. 4 is proved, whether the applicant bonafide requires the same for his use and occupation OPA. 6. Whether Chaman Lal is the tenant of the applicant and idliable to be evicted for non payment of rent OPA. 7. Relief. On the question of sub-letting, The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises were taken by Chaman Lal on behalf of the firm and therefore, there was no question of any sub-letting. Consequently, the application was dismissed. In appeal the learned Appellate Authority reversed that finding of the Rent Controller and has come to the conclusion that "therefore, finding of the Rent Controller that Ex. A1, the rent note shows that he was taken on behalf of the firm, to me has not been correctly arrived at and similarly the finding that Chaman Lal took the shop as joint firm is not proved on the record because it has already been held by me that i was taken by Chaman Lal in individual capacity and not on behalf of the firm." Consequently, the appeal as allowed and the order of ejectment was passed against the tenant on the grounds of sub-letting. Feeling aggrieved against this order the alleged sub-tenant Bhushan Drug House has come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Appellate Authority has wrongly reversed the finding of the Rent Controller. According to the learned counsel, a reading of the rent note (Exhibit AI) will prove that the premises were taken by Chaman Lal on behalf of the firm Bhushan Drug House. He further contended that subsequently the rent was also paid by and on behalf of firm Bhushan Drug House and therefore, under these circumstances it could not be held that there was any subletting by Chaman Lal.;