IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1000 of 2007 Date of decision: February 12, 2008. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee through its General Attorney Sukhraj Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Shri Amolak Singh & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 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. Present: Shri Har Naresh Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.1.2005 passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, dismissing the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner, as well as against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2006 passed by the Appellate Court, Amritsar whereby the petitioner's appeal against the above stated order of the Rent Controller, has been dismissed. The facts may be noticed briefly. The petitioner - Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (in short the Act) for eviction of the respondents alleging, inter-alia, that:- (i) the demised premises – a shop was rented out to respondent no.1 who had further sub-let the same to respondent No.2 without the consent of the land-lord; and (ii) the tenant has failed to pay entire arrears of rent. As regards to the first ground of ejectment, namely, sub-letting, the courts below have concurrently held that no evidence, whatsoever, has been brought on record to prove that the demised premises was ever rented out to respondent No.1 (Amolak Singh). Neither any rent note nor any evidence to show the receipt of rent from respondent No.1 has been proved. Rather, the authorised representative of the petitioner – Sukhraj Singh (AW3) has admitted in his cross examination that entry regarding the receipt of rent is duly made in the books of accounts maintained by the petitioner. Those books, however, have not been produced on record. No evidence to the effect that the possession of the demised premises was delivered to Amolak Singh or when did he part with the said possession in favour of respondent No.2, has been brought on record. In these circumstances, the view taken by the courts below that the plea of sub- letting has not been proved, warrants no interference by this Court. As regards to the non-payment of arrears of rent, it is not disputed that respondent No.2 tendered rent for 55 months @ Rs.200/- per month and for 45 months @ Rs.358/- per month, which were duly accepted by the petitioner. In the absence of any plea taken by the petitioner that the rent tendered by respondent No.2 was short or inadequate, even the second ground seeking ejectment of respondent No.2 also failed. No interference, therefore, is called for. Dismissed. February 12, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge