VINOD K.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision has been filed against an order dated 16.5.1997 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, ordering eviction of the petitioner from the shop situated on Jalandhar-Hoshiarpur Road near Old Octroi Post, Kishanpura, Jalandhar City, shown red in the site plan attached and bounded as under :- North : Standard Rubber Industries South : Jalandhar-Hoshiarpur Road East : Standard Rubber Industries West : Shop of the petitioner in occupation of Ram Kishan.
(2.) THE respondent-landlord had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant from the shop on the averment that the petitioner was the tenant in the shop in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs. 50/- as per rent note dated 3.9.1976 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 60/- and then to Rs. 70/- per month. It was claimed that the petitioner and pro forma respondent No. 2 were liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the ground that the tenant has not paid the arrears of rent from November, 1986 and that the tenant has sub-let the shop in dispute to the pro forma respondent without his consent. It was also claimed that the tenant had shifted his business from the shop in dispute wherein the pro forma respondent was working as a Tea Stall Vendor. The petition was contested wherein it was claimed that pro forma respondent was real nephew of the tenant who casually helped the tenant in carrying on his business of running a Tea Stall in the name and style of Swami Tea Stall in the premises in dispute. The allegation of sub-letting was denied. It was claimed that the rent from November, 1986 had already been paid against receipt dated 13.11.1986 and thereafter a sum of Rs. 300/- was given as advance to be adjusted in rent against receipt dated 3.8.1987 but in spite of this, rent for six months has been claimed without adjusting the said amount. However, the rent claimed was paid and accordingly Issued No. 1 was not pressed. However Issue No. 2 i.e. issue regarding sub-letting of the shop in dispute by the petitioner to pro forma respondent, was decided by the learned Rent Controller against the respondent-landlord holding that the landlord had failed to prove sub-letting. Consequently, the petition filed by the respondent-landlord was dismissed. However, in appeal, the learned Appellate Authority reversed the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had sub-let the shop in dispute to pro forma respondent and accordingly ordered eviction of the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that as the sub- letting being a contract between a tenant and sub-tenant, it is difficult to prove by way of direct evidence and, therefore, circumstantial evidence has to be seen so as to come to the conclusion whether sub-letting has been proved or not.;