J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner against the order of the Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, where by his ejectment from the premises in dispute, i.e. a Chabutra has been ordered.
(2.) The landlord-respondent had failed an application for ejectment against his tenant Ram Lal, on the ground of sub-letting. The allegation made in the petition was that Ram Lal had sublet the premises in dispute to Sita Ram son of Bhajni without his consent. In reply to this allegation, the tenant pleaded that Ram Lal had not parted with the possession of the suit premises but Sita Rim and his father Bhajni, his near relations, were helping him in running the tea shop business. It was further stated that Bhajni and Ram Lal are running tea shop jointly and Bhajni and his son are the members of the joint Hindu family. Bhajni is the Karta. During the trial of the case, the tenant-petitioner produced a partnership deed between him and Bhajni (R.W. 2) which is Exhibit K. W. 1/1, dated 27th Jan., 1970, though it was never pleaded in the written statement filed by Ram Lal. The learned Appellate Authority after going through the evidence and the documents on the file, came to the conclusion that the said partnership deed in this case is fake and, consequently, it raises a presumption of sub-tenancy in favour of Sita Ram son of Bhajni by Ram Lal tenant.
(3.) I have gone through the record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that how this finding arrived at by the Appellate Authority is vitiated Taking into consideration the plea taken by Ram Lal tenant in his written statement and setting up partnership during the evidence, clearly proves that he has sublet the premises to Sita Ram son of Bhajni. as alleged by the landlord in his petition for ejectment. Thus, I do not find any substance In this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.;