Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by Shrimati Parbati widow of Mukand Lal, alleged landlady, against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur dated Aug. 30, 1976.
(2.) Briefly the case of the landlady is that the property in dispute belonged to Mukand Lal, her husband. Aster his death, she became its owner. Manohar Lal took the property on lease from her husband for Bansi Lal, who was his employee, on Rs. 40 per mensem as rent. She filed an application for ejectment against the respondents on the ground that she required the property for her own use and occupation and that the respondents had not paid the arrears of rent since Oct. 20, 1967. The application was contested by the respondents who denied the aforesaid allegations Manohar Lal respondent stated that he never took the property on rent from Mukand Lal. He, therefore, pleaded that be was not liable to pass any rent. Bansi Lal averred that he took the property from one Nand Lal brother of Mukand Lal on payment of Rs. 10.00 as rent. He denied that the petitioner was his landlady, He also averred that she did not require the premises for her own use and occupation.
(3.) The Rent Controller came so the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and Bansi Lal. He also held that the arrears of rent had not beta paid by the respondent. He consequently ordered ejectment of Bansi Lal respondent. Bansi lal went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority. He held that Bansi Lal was not proved to be the tenant under the landlady. Consequently he reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and dismissed the application for ejectment of the landlady. She has come up in revision against that order to this Court.;