- (1.) The revision petition is at the instance of the landlord challenging the correctness of the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing his petition for eviction. The only point urged before me by the counsel is a reconsideration of the finding as regards the alleged sub-letting said to have been done by the first respondent without written authority from the landlord.
(2.) Two contentions which were taken at the trial Court and the appellate Court were: (1) the respondents 2 to 6, who were said to be the sub-tenants, had not been examined in Court. (ii) The second contention was that the tenant, who contended that he was running a jewellary shop, had not shown any wages as having been paid to respondents 2 to 6 through any wage register or he had not even shown the wages alleged to have been paid in the income tax returns which were summoned to the Court below.
(3.) The appellate Court rejected this contention and held that even the petitioner's witness had admitted that the tenant continued in the premises but he was contending that the other persons were his own employees doing some menial work on work charge basis. The appellate authority observed that the nature of business in jewellary was such that he could have engaged persons in the shop and they must be treated as licensees and they could not be taken as sub-tenants.;