- (1.) Tenant Makhan Lal and Ram Parkash, petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur, dated December 8, 1976, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dismissing the ejectment application was set aside and the order of the ejectment was passed against the petitioners.
(2.) Labhu Ram, landlord-respondent, filed ejectment application against the petitioners, for eviction from the premises, in dispute, which consisted of a shop, on the allegations that the tenant had sub-let the same to Ram Parkash, petitioner, without his written consent or permission. The other grounds taken by him are not relevant for the purpose of this petition and the same need not be mentioned In the written statement filed on behalf of the tenant-petitioner, Makhan Lal, it was pleaded that Ram Parkash petitioner, was a partner with him in addition to one Krishan Lal. Under these circumstances, the question of sub-letting the demised premises did not arise and the ejectment application was liable to be dismissed on this ground. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues. 1. Whether the respondents are liable to ejectment on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 4 of the petition 2. Whether any notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required to be given If so, whether any legal and valid notice was served on the respondent 3. Relief. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application and came to the conclusion that the sub-letting of the premises in dispute, by the tenant, as alleged by the landlord-respondent, was not proved. Makhan Lal, tenant-petitioner and Ram Parkash, petitioner, were running partnership business in the shop, in dispute, and Exhibit R. 5, was the deed of partnership executed between the parties. Reliance was also placed on the statement of Shri K.D. Vig, RW 5, Income Tax Officer, who stated that this firm was registered with the Income Tax Department. For the assessment year 1971-72, the status of the firm was that of an unregistered firm. On appeal, this finding of the Rent Controller has been reversed by the Appellate Authority. It took the view that the statement of accounts and the partnership deed, relied upon by the Rent Controller, were not proved in a proper way. Consequently, the order of ejectment was passed against the petitioners, on the ground of subletting. Feeling aggrieved against the same, they have come up in revision to this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the technical rules of evidence as such do not apply to the proceedings under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on Dwarka Das v. Shrimati Ramlubhai, 1969 71 PunLR 68. It was also contended that it was amply proved on the record that the tenant, Makhan Lal, was running his business in partnership with Ram Parkash and one Krishan Lal. A copy of the partnership deed was Exhibit R. 5, dated August 10, 1970. On the basis of partnership deed, it was further contended that the firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms vide Exhibit R. 7, dated February 22, 1973, as well as with the Income-Tax Department, and as a result, the said firm was assessed as a registered firm. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the Appellate Authority has given a firm finding that the alleged partnership deed of 1970 was got registered only in February, 1973. as is apparent from the copies of Form A, Exhibit R. 6, and Form C, Exhibit R. 7, and therefore, there was no bona fide partnership as alleged by the tenant, between him and Ram Parkash, petitioner.;