V.S. Aggarwal, J
1. The present revision petition had been filed by Smt. Santosh Rani and another (hereinafter described as 'the petitioners') directed against the judgment of learned Appellate Authority, Sirsa dated 10.12.1982. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority set aside the order as passed by the learned Rent Controller. Instead the petition for eviction was allowed and the petitioner was granted two month's time to vacate the premises.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondents had preferred a petition for eviction with respect to the suit premises. It was asserted that the suit property had been let to Ravinder Kumar at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The grounds of eviction pressed were that the tenant has failed to pay arrears of rent from 1.7.1977 and that the said tenant has sublet the premises to Kishan Lal and Santosh Rani (petitioners in the present revision petition). In the reply filed, the alleged tenant Ravinder Kumar stated that he was a tenant in the suit premises till 30.6.1977 at a monthly rent of Rs.325/-. Thereafter the possession was handed over by him to the landlord. The shop was pleaded to have thereafter let to Kishan Lal. The petitioners in their reply alleged that they were the tenants in the property at a monthly rent of Rs.l00/- from 1.4.1977. There was a partnership styled as Om Traders. Ravinder Kumar was one of the partners. After he and her mother retired from the partnership, the petitioners continued the partnership business.
3. The learned Rent controller framed the issues and held that it was the partnership firm. The petitioners were one of the partners who had taken the premises on rent. Accordingly, it was held that tender on the first date of hearing was valid and plea of subletting necessarily also failed. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority set aside the findings of the learned Rent Controller and recorded that even if the rent note could not be read in evidence, it must be taken to be an oral tenancy accompanied by delivery of possession. The tenant in fact was Ravinder Kumar and not the petitioners. Once this finding was arrived at, it was said that rent was not Rs.100/- P.M. The rent tendered was held to be insufficient and deficient and that the petitioners are not the tenants. The presumption of subletting was drawn. With these findings, the order of eviction was passed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been preferred.
4. The first and foremost question that comes up for consideration is as to whether the petitioners could also be taken to be the tenants or it was Ravinder Kumar who had taken the property on rent?
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners was right when she argued that it was neither the case of the petitioners nor of the respondents that it was an oral tenancy created accompanied by possession. Indeed when this is not so, the Appellate Authority could not make out a new case for either party.
6. But this is not at all. Ravinder Kumar himself admitted that he was the tenant in the suit premises. He added that he had surrendered the tenancy. But there is precious little on the record to show as to when and how the tenancy was surrendered. It is also the case of the respondents that it was Ravinder Kumar alone who was the tenant in the suit property. Even if the lease agreement for want of registration could not be read, in evidence, it is established by the material on the record that it was Ravinder Kumar alone who was the tenant in the suit premises. There is no hesitation, therefore, in approving that there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between Ravinder Kumar.
7. A controversy even was raised to the extent that rent was only Rs.100/- P.M. and not Rs.325/- P.M. In this regard a finding of fact had been arrived at by the Appellate Authority by appreciating the material on the record that rent was not Rs.100/- P.M. Since it is based on evidence, this Court will not interfere. The tender was not made, therefore, at the rate demanded by the respondents which, had been held by the Appellate Authority to be the agreed rent. On that account there is no scope for interference.
8. Pertaining to the ground that the premises had been sublet, the material on the record simply indicated that Ravinder Kumar was a partner with the petitioners. It had already been held that Ravinder Kumar retired from the partnership. Only the petitioners continued but they are not the tenants. Once it is so, when third persons are in possession and they even set up the title as tenants, the inference of subletting were obvious. There is no ground thus to interfere in the impugned judgment.
9. For these reasons, the revision petition must fail and is dismissed. The petitioners are granted three months time to vacate the premises.