S.S.SODHI,J - (1.) THE concurrent finding of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority that the tenant-Devinder Singh Sandhu had sublet the demised premises to his brother-in-law Hardev Singh Bajwa warrants no interference in revision.
(2.) THE material on record shows that the first floor of House 155 in Sector 20 let out to the tenant Devinder Singh Sandhu, Superintendent, Excise and Customs. Later, in May 1983, he was transferred to Ludhiana, where he was allotted government residential accommodation in the Railway colony, Ludhiana, which he has been occupying since September 1984. The family of the tenant has also shifted to Ludhiana and his children have been admitted to school there and they have been living there ever since. In his absence now, his brother-in-law resides in the demised premises, the plea of the tenant being that this brother-in-law is dependent upon him and further that he has left his luggage behind in these premises and whenever he visits Chandigarh, he comes and lives there. The aspect of material significance to be noted at the very outset, in dealing with the issue raised, is that the tenant Devinder Singh Sandhu did not appear in the witness box despite five opportunities being granted to by him by the Rent Controller, for this purpose. The excuse put forth by him being that on account of an accident, he was not in a position to move. This is, however, denuded of all credibility when regard is had to the fact that he did not care to avail of the order of the Rent Controller that he be examined on commission. Later, however, when the matter was before the appellate authority, he did apply for permission to appear in the witness box, but this was rightly declined, as the appellate stage does not, by itself, provides another opportunity, as it were, to fill up gaps in the evidence of the party, which it had the ample opportunity to do before the Rent Controller. In the circumstances, therefore, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the omission of the tenant to appear in the witness box must raise an adverse inference against him.
(3.) TURNING to the brother-in-law of the tenant Hardev Singh Bajwa, the plea that he was dependent upon the tenant, stands negatived by his own evidence and the documentary evidence on record, which shows that he was employed with Sartaj Transport from 1980 to 1982 and then again from 1983 onwards while during the intervening period from August 1982 to August 1983 he was working for Punjab Anand Batteries. Being gainfully employed in this manner, he cannot be said to have been dependent upon his brother-in-law.;