J.V.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS is tenant's petition against whom application for ejectment was dismissed by the Rent Controller but has been allowed in appeal.
(2.) BRIJ Lal landlord (respondent herein) sought the ejectment of his tenant Darshan Kumar (petitioner No. 1 herein) from the premises in dispute which consists of a shop situated in "Anaj Mandi" at Dhuri, inter alia, on the ground that the same has been sublet by Darshan Kumar to Baldev Krishan (petitioner No. 2 herein). It was alleged that Darshan Kumar took the shop on rent from the landlord at the rate of Rs. 550/- per annum, for one year from 21.11.1965 to 20.11.1966, vide rent-note Exhibit A-1. Darshan Kumar occupied that said shop but, later on, he ceased to occupy the same and sublet it to Baldev Krishan without the written consent of the landlord. It was further stated that Darshan Kumar is doing his business of making iron boxs in the neighboring shop while Baldev Krishan is working as a dry cleaner in the shop in question. It was further averred that Baldev Krishan gave the last room of the shop to the Food and Supplies Department, Dhuri, from 1.6.1967 to 5.5.1968 at a rental of Rs. 24/- per annum. The Department used the said room as a godown for storing bags of wheat therein. Thus, on account of the sub-letting, the petitioners herein were liable to ejectment. In a joint written statement filed on their behalf, they denied that Darshan Kumar had sublet the shop in question to Baldev Krishan. It was pleaded that both of them are the members of joint Hindu family. From the very beginning, both the brothers (petitioners herein) are carrying on the business of dry-cleaning in the shop and in the neighboring shop the work of making iron boxes is being done. It was denied that any portion of the shop was given to the Civil Supplies Department, as alleged. The Rent Controller found that Darshan Kumar had never sublet the shop to Baldev Krishan nor any portion of the shop in question was further sublet by Baldev Krishan to the Civil Supplies Department. In view of this finding, the application was dismissed. On appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the said finding of the trial Court and came to the conclusion that it is established that Darshan Kumar had sublet the premises, in dispute, to Baldev Krishan without the written consent to Brij Lal landlord. In view of this finding, the order of eviction was passed against the tenant. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that Baldev Krishan is the real brother of Darshan Kumar and both are in occupation of the premises in dispute. It was further contended that they are members of Hindu Joint family and the shop was taken on rent as such by Darshan Kumar.;