CR No.2478 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2478 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:19.05.2011. Sh. Vishnu Dass ...Petitioner Versus Mohinder Pal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. The landlord is in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which his eviction petition filed under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Rent of Control & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] in respect of property No.BV-451/383/1, situated in Arya Bazar, Hisar on the ground of subletting, has been declined. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case set up by the landlord is that as per report of the Local Commissioner, respondent No.2 Harish Kumar was found present at the demised premises along with another person, but his mere presence is not indicative of the fact that respondent No.1 had parted with his legal possession and that too for a consideration in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the salary shown to have been paid to Harish Kumar as entered in the Rokar/Bahi cannot be believed as the respondent No.1 has failed to show his income tax returns etc. In this regard, the learned Courts below have recorded a firm finding of fact and the precise finding of the learned Appellate Authority requires a specific mention, which is as under: - “The version of respondent is specific that respondent No.2 was being paid salary and was only an CR No.2478 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** employee. He is working in the adjoining shop thereafter. Salary is shown to be paid to Harish Kumar in Rokar/Bahi. The deposition of PW2 Shiv Kumar is also not conclusive in nature as in his cross-examination he admitted that he might have purchased the time piece from the adjoining shop i.e. Pankaj Electronics. It could also be not shown that respondent No.1 himself is working somewhere else and a bald version has been taken that he is in the business of finance and working so at his own house. It has been admitted by PW6 landlord that he had not seen any sign board etc. indicating that respondent No.1 is running his business at his house and has parted with possession of the shop in dispute in favour of respondent Harish. PW5 Bhim Singh is none else but maternal uncle of petitioner. The onus was very heavy upon the petitioner/landlord to prove that there is no control of respondent No.1 over the shop in dispute and the same is in the control of sub tenant Harish Kumar. Now a days business of even a minor shop can not be run single handedly and it is not unusual to employ a person or two by a shop keeper. Possession of Harish Kumar respondent No.2 could not be shown over the shop exclusively so as to be a ground of eviction.” No other point has been raised. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. May 19, 2011. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge