- (1.) Firm Dal Singh Prem Chand through Kapur Chand have filed this petition against the order of the learned District Judge acting as an Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), by which the application of Smt. Triveni Devi was allowed and ejectment order was passed against the petitioner. Smt. Triveni Devi, respondent, claiming herself to be the owner of the shop in dispute, filed an application for ejectment of the petitioners from the shop in dispute on the ground that the same had been sublet without her consent by Phulla respondent, to whom she had rented out the shop. The application was contested only by the petitioners on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, Rent Controller framed the following issues :- "(1) Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet a part of the suit premises to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (2) Whether the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the direct tenants of the application (This issue is not pressed by respondents counsel as it is included in issue No. 1). (3) Whether notice under section 106 of the T.P. Act was necessary, and if so, its effect (4) Relief." The learned Rent Controller decided issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the landlord and held that the petitioner were the direct tenants of Smt. Triveni Devi and that respondent No. 1 had not sublet any part of the sop in dispute to the petitioners. On issue No. 3 it was held that the notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was necessary to be served on the contesting respondents. In view of the findings on all the issues, the application was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the learned Rent Controller, Smt. Triveni Devi, landlady, filed an appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated April 24, 1971 and an ejectment order was passed against the petitioners. Dissatified from the order of the Appellate Authority, as earlier observed, the present revision petition has been filed.
(2.) It was vehemently contended by Shri Hira Lal Sibal, Senior Advocate, that the learned Appellate Authority has reversed the finding of the learned Rent Controller on issues Nos. 1 and 2 on purely conjectural grounds. According to the learned counsel, the rent deed, Exhibit P. 1 alleged to have been executed by Phulla, respondent in favour of Smt. Triveni Devi on January 7, 1961, was a fictitious document and that this fact was amply proved from the evidence on the record. On the other hand, it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for Smt. Triveni Devi, respondent, that the finding of the learned Appellate Authority on issues Nos. 1 and 2 had been arrived at after consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence; that the said finding was a pure finding of fact and that this Court had no jurisdiction to re-appraise the entire evidence and take a view other than the one arrived at by the Appellate Authority.
(3.) At first sight, on the basis of the judgment of the Appellate Authority, the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents may appear to be plausible but after having scrutinised the entire evidence, oral and documentary, with the help of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.;