V.K Bali, J.:— This revision has been filed challenging the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller dated 5th of December, 1978 and the one passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18th of September, 1980.
2. Petitioner-landlord sough eviction of the tenant-respondent under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on various grounds incluive of that original tenant Kirpal Chand had sublet the premises in question to respondents 2 and 3. Whereas other grounds of non-payment of rent etc. were not pressed either before the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority, the one which survived upto the Appellate Authority and this Court is that the premises have been sublet by original tenant Kirpal Chand to respondents 2 and 3 without any permission or consent of the petitioner landlord.
3. It is proved by over-whelming evidence that respondents 2 and 3 are none other than real brothers of respondent 1 Kirpal Chand. It is true that sub-tenancy cannot be proved by direct evidence. However, the circumstance that was pressed into service to prove sub-tenancy in this case was report of the Local Commissioner. In view of this Court, the said report was properly dealt with by the Appellate Authority and further it had also rightly been relied upon the evidence of Baldev Mitter, Photographer RW-1 to rebut the presumption that might have arisen from the report of the Local Commissioner. Baldev Mitter Photographer RW-1 proved photographs Ex. R-4 to R-6. The photograph R-4 would manifest that in fact there is one sign board over the shutter of the shop on which there are two separate inscriptions. Under both the inscription the name of proprietor is written as Kirpal Chand Harnam Das. It may be mentioned that Local Commissioner who visited the spot mentioned in his report that at the time he visited the premises, he found the shop having been partitioned into two parts by a counter and there were two separate sign boards displayed on the said shop. The sign board on the front portion of part ‘A’ read as “Fancy Embroidery Works” on which the name of the proprietor had been written as Vijay Kumar Harnam Das whereas on part ‘B’ of the shop the board read as “Fancy Ready-made Store” proprietor Kirpal Chand Harnam Dass. Even if it be assumed on the basis of the sign board that there was some kind of partition, that itself will not prove sub-tenancy having been created by the original tenant Kirpal Chand in favour of respondents 2 and 3. This Court is of the firm view that Appellate Authority has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence that was led by the parties and there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
4. For the reasons mentioned above, revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
R.M.S
Petition dismissed.