N.K. Kapoor, J. - (1.) HEARD . No ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
(2.) RESPONDENT -landlord sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of sub -letting. It is the case of the landlord that premises in dispute was let out to Dharam Pal who during his life time sub -let the same to Shri Siri Niwas for a valuable consideration. During the pendency of the application Dharam Pal died and so his legal representatives were brought on record. The landlord with a view to prove the factum of sub -tenancy appeared as his own witness the examined S/Shri Banarsi Lal and Krishan Baldev, who supported the case of the petitioner. In rebuttal Raj Kumar, one of the legal representative of Dharam Pal appeared as witness. No other witness has been examined. No independent evidence has been led by the petitioner to prove that earlier Dharam Pal and after his death his legal representatives have been running the business in the shop in dispute. The Rent Controller while noticing this made specific mention of the fact that electricity bills have not been adduced in evidence which could show that electricity consumption bills are being paid by Dharam Pal or his legal representatives. Similarly, no evidence has been led to prove that any transaction had been done by Shri Dharam Pal or his legal representatives in this shop i.e. carrying on the business of the sale of household articles (Karyana). The learned counsel for the petitioner with a view to seek reversal of the decisions of the two authorities have primarily highlighted the fact that electricity bills could possibly be adduced by the landlord and mere non -production by the petitioner cannot be construed adversely. Otherwise also there is no evidence on record that there is parting of possession as no exact date or month has been mentioned when Dharam Pal parted with possession in favour of Siri Niwas. I find no substance in this contention of the petitioner as well. Admittedly, Siri Niwas is father's Brother's son of the Dharam Pal and so a close relation. The payment of consideration is invariably a secret deal which is best known to the two parties. At best the Court can infer from certain circumstances. In the present case, except for the solitary statement of Raj Kumar and that too without any independent evidence there is no other oral or documentary evidence on record on the basis of which it could be inferred that there has been no parting of possession by Dharam Pal. Siri Niwas too has not come in the witness box to rebut this positive assertion of the petitioner. Findings recorded by the authorities below are thus perfectly just in the circumstances of the case calling for no interference.
(3.) DISMISSED .;