CR No.908 of 2011(O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.908 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:12.05.2011 Bimla Devi . . .Petitioner Versus Sham Sundari and others . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Vivek Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kapil Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 4. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The tenant is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which he has been ordered to vacate the demised premises on the ground of sub-letting. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no evidence of parting of possession by the tenant, therefore, the eviction order could not have been passed. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 has submitted that the demised premises was let out to husband of the petitioner for running a hotel and after his death no business has been run by the petitioner for 18 -19 years, which is evident from her statement. He further submitted that there is no explanation as to why respondent No.2 is occupying the demised premises. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Courts below does not call for any interference. In this regard, the observations of the learned Appellate Court are required to be reproduced, which is as under: “The only point of determination before this Court is, therefore, whether the shop in dispute had been sublet to respondent No.2 Puneet Kumar or not. Ex.P2 which is the statement of CR No.908 of 2011(O&M) - 2 - Bimla Devi in some other case is a document which is fully admissible in law and proves without any doubt that she had sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No.2 Puneet Kumar. This statement has been proved by PW2 Vinod Bhardwaj. Bimla had herself stated in the statement that she had given the shop on rent to respondent No.2. She had also stated in the statement that earlier her husband was running a hotel in the shop in dispute but after his death no business was being run for 18-19 years. Still further RW1 Vijay Sharma has stated that he was a partner with the tenant and was doing the business of T.V. repair in the shop in dispute. In the eviction petition no averment regarding any partnership had been made. There was not even a whisper or any partnership either by respondent No.1 (appellant) or by respondent No.2 (respondent No.5 herein). The partnership deed Ex.R1 seems to have been prepared (if not fabricated) only with a view to raise a totally new ground which did not form a part of the pleadings. Such a stand cannot be accepted. The document was definitely prepared to fill up the lacunas. A perusal of the document also shows that it is highly suspicious. Though the document is shown to have been attested by a Notary Public, there is no serial number in the stamp of the Notary Public showing the serial number. Further, dates have been filled up in the blank spaces. It also does not find mentioned in the alleged partnership deed as to from which date the partnership came into existence. No reliance can, therefore, be placed upon this document. It, therefore, stands CR No.908 of 2011(O&M) - 3 - proved that the tenant had parted with the possession of the shop in dispute for consideration.” In view of the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is totally devoid of any merit and as such the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 12, 2011 JUDGE Vivek