- (1.) The short question involved in this petition, under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act by the tenant, is as to whether the shop in dispute had been sub-let by the petitioner to respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
(2.) The Rent Controller after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties negatived the plea of sub-letting. On appeal the finding of the Rent Controller was reversed and holding that the shop in dispute had been sub-let by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority passed the ejectment order vide judgment dated February 25, 1976.
(3.) The finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is essentially a finding of fact but the learned counsel for the petitioner relying on 1977 Rent Law Reporter 605 urged that this Court should reappraise the evidence to look into the property of the impugned order. I am, however, unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. Before this Court could embark upon re-appreciation of the evidence, the petitioner is to make out a ground showing the impropriety of the impugned order. Be that as it may, even on reappraisal of the evidence I find no reason to differ with the finding of the Appellate Authority.;