Prem Chand Jain, J. - (1.) This judgment and order of mine would dispose of Civil Revision No. 240 of 1973, filed by Murti Behari Ji Maharaj Birajmao Mandir Shri Behari Ji (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mandir') and Civil Revise, No. 175 of 1973, filed by Kanhaiya Lal, which both arise out of the judgment of the learned District Judge, Gurgaon acting as an, Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949, dated Jan. 5, 1973, by which Kanhaiya Lal was refused relief while his co-appellants were allowed the relief prayed for. As earlier observed, feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment, the two revision petitions have been filed.
(2.) The facts about which there is no dispute read as under.
(3.) The Mandir filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against Kanhaiya Lal on the ground that he Was the tenant of the premises in dispute ; that he had not paid the rent from March 7, 1952, and that he had sublet a portion of the premises in dispute to respondent 2 to 5. The ejectment application was contested by Piarey Lal and other, respondents on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed. The learned Rent Controller decided all the issues in favour of the Mandir and passed an ejectment order against Kanhaiya Lal and others. Feeling aggrieved from the ejectment order, Kanhaiya Lal and others filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on issues 1 and 2. On issues No. 3, the Appellate Authority held that Piarey Lal and others were not the sub-tenants of Kanhaiya Lal and that no ejectment order could be passed against them. On the basis of these findings the appeal was partly allowed inasmuch as relief to Kanhaiya Lal against the ejectment order passed against him was refused while the order of ejectment passed against Piarey Lal and others set aside. It is in these circumstances that the aforesaid two revision petitions have been filed.;