M.S.LIBERHAN,J - (1.) THE landlady sought ejectment of the respondents on the grounds, viz. (i) that respondent No. 1 was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 30/- per mensem from May 1, 1968 to February 28, 1975; (ii) that the respondent No. 1 has sublet the premises in question without her written consent to respondent Nos. 2 and 3; and (iii) that the user of the shop has been changed, as it was rented out for general merchandise business and is being now used for a different business by installing machinery run by electric power.
(2.) THE allegations were refuted, and it was contended by respondent No. 1 that he relinquished the tenancy during the month of February, 1968. Thereafter, the premises in dispute was rented out directly to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 at the rate of Rs. 35/- per mensem and rent had in fact been paid from March 1, 1968 to April 31, 1974. The allegations of change of user as well as subletting were denied. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that there was no change of user. The finding was never challenged before the appellate authority. The Rent Controller further came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 relinquished the tenancy and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were inducted as tenants directly by the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 35/- per month and she received the rent as averred by the respondents through her son Baldev Raj vide receipt Exhibits R-2 to R-49. For the remaining period arrears of rent were tendered in Court in accordance with law. The petitioner challenged the findings of the Rent Controller through an appeal which was dismissed after affirming the findings of the Rent Controller.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings arrived at by the authorities below cannot be sustained. He challenged the same on account of being illegal and improper. It is contended that there being no specific plea that the tenancy was relinquished nor any plea to whom the rent was paid, the evidence led with respect to the payment of rent through Baldev Raj, son of the petitioner, specially when he was a minor at the time when he issued the receipt exhibits R-2 to R-49, cannot be looked into. It is contended that the approach of the authorities below was not proper.;