- (1.) This is a petition filed on behalf of the landlord whose application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller and on appeal the same order was affirmed.
(2.) Landlord-petitioner filed the application for the ejectment of his tenant Nanak Chand on various grounds, including the ground of sub-letting to M/s. Rajiv Motors. In the written statement it was pleaded that Nanak Chand was carrying on the business in the name of M/s. Rajiv Motors long before Rampal Singh had become the owner of the demised shop and that in fact be was the Karta of joint family, consisting of himself, Pawan Kumar and Rajiv Kumar, alleged proprietors of Rajiv Motors. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the respondent No. I has sublet the premises in suit to respondent No. 2 2. Whether the tenancy of the respondent No. 1 has been terminated by a valid notice The Rent Controller found on issue No. 1 against the landlord and, consequently, dismissed the application for ejectment. On appeal, this (finding has been affirmed. It has been observed by the Appellate Authority that there is not even an iota of evidence on record that Nanak Chand was receiving any rent etc. from Pawan Kumar and Rajiv Kumar or that any contractual relationship between the respondents, inter se had taken place.
(3.) The learned counsel for the landlord-petitioner contended that Nanak Chand, respondent, is not carrying on the business at the shop, and, there fore, under the circumstances the subletting was proved. After going through the evidence, he was unable to support this contention. It is amply proved on the record that Nanak Chand is carrying on the business at the shop in the name of M/s. Rajiv Motors. Both the authorities below after going through the evidence have come to a concurrent finding that Nanak Chand is in possession of the demised shop and the question of his transferring the tenancy rights in favour of Rajiv Motors or any body else does not arise. Moreover, this is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with in this revision petition. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to challenge this finding.;