IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3781 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.08.2009 Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner versus Baldev Krishan and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is at the instance of the alleged sub- tenant who has been ordered to be evicted alongwith respondent No.2 from the demised premises comprising a shop, owned by Mahavir Dal, Bhadaur by the Rent Controller, Barnala vide its order dated 2.4.2003 which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority, Barnala vide its judgment dated 17.12.2005. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the demised premises was let out to the proforma respondent No.2 by respondent No.1 vide rent note dated 7.3.1995 on an annual rent of Rs.6,000/-. It has been C.R. No.3781 of 2006 2 further held that respondent No.1 has surrendered the absolute possession for consideration, in favour of the petitioner who is running his business from the demised premises. Since the petitioner claimed himself to be a direct tenant under the respondent No.1, the parties went on trial on the following issues: “1) Whether their exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties? OPA. 2) If issue No.1 proved, whether respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 31.12.1997, if so, its effection? OPA. 3) Whether the respondent No.1 has sublet the property in dispute to respondent No.2 Vinod Kumar? OPA. 4) Whether Baldev Krishan s/o Charanji Lal has got no concern with the shop in dispute and he has no locus standi to file this application? OPR. 5) Whether the applicant has got no cause of action to file this application? OPR. 6) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try this application? OPR. 7) Relief.” On consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, especially the rent note dated 7.3.1995 (Ex.A-1), the execution whereof could not be disputed by respondent No.2, the Rent Controller held that there is no direct relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. The said finding of fact has been re-affirmed by C.R. No.3781 of 2006 3 the Appellate Authority also. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord states at the bar that since this revision petition was dismissed in default at one point of time, the eviction order has been executed and pursuant thereto, the possession of the demised premises has already been taken by the respondent-landlord. Be that as it may, no meaningful argument could be advanced on behalf of the petitioner sub-tenant, on the basis of which the findings returned by the Courts below, on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record, can be interfered with by this Court. No interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 21-08-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE