- (1.) The tenant petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundar dated 22nd February, 1975, whereby the order of the Rent Controller directing his ejectment has been maintained. The premises in dispute are situated at Ladowali Road, Jullundar City, bearing No. B-IX/1-1521 shown in the plain attached with the ejectment application. It was alleged that the ant occupied these premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- and he had not been paying rent since 1st January, 1967. The order grounds of ejectment were also taken in the application. However, on the pleading of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the ejectment application in respect of room alone is maintainable 2. What premises were let out to the respondent No. 1 and for what purpose 3. What is the effect of the decision of the Civil case decided by Shri D.S. Chatha, between the parties 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 has sub let the premises to respondent No. 2 5. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on ground mentioned in para 3 of the application 6. Relief.
(2.) On issue No. 1, the learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion as under :- "In the application it is clearly mentioned that the respondents were liable to be evicted from the premises shown in red in the plan Exhibit A/1. Perusal of the plan revealed that the demised property as shown therein was not only the room but also vacant site attached therewith. As such it cannot be held that the applicant sought the ejectment of the respondent from the room only and on that account the application was liable to be dismissed." However, the other grounds were found against the landlord but the tenant was directed to vacate the premises on the ground on non payment of rent. On appeal, the finding on issue No. 1 given by the Rent Controller was specifically challenged and the Appellate Authority has failed to give any finding on the point. According to him, he could contest that finding given by the Rent Controller on that issue. However, I am not convicted that simply because in the memorandum of appeal a ground was taken itself sufficient to show that it was argued before the Appellate Authority. It is well known that all the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal are not argue before the Court concerned. However, in order to do justice between the ies, I have gone through the record and I am satisfied that the finding given by the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 is correct and does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.
(3.) The learned counsel for the tenant next contended that the Appellate Authority has acted wrongly in declining the application for additional evidence. However, I am not satisfied with his argument. It was discretionary for the Appellate Authority and in case the application for additional evidence was not allowed, it cannot be a ground for interference in revision. Admittedly, on the evidence on record, the tender of rent on the first date of hearing was shorter and thus the tenant was liable to ejectment on ground of non-payment of rent. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs.;