IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 650 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: February 1, 2010 Nidhan Singh. …Petitioner Versus Naveen Talwar and another. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate, for the petitioner. S.D. Anand, J. In a chord of concurrent, both the Courts i.e. the learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority, recorded a finding of fact that the respondent – landlord had been able to prove that the tenanted premises had been sublet by respondent No.1 to the petitioner herein. On upheld finding of unauthorized subletting, a decree for ejectment of the petitioner herein from the tenanted premises was granted in favour of respondent No.1. The petitioner herein had raised a plea at the trial that he is not a sub tenant but is direct tenant in the tenanted premises under the landlord. He did not, thus, deny being in occupation of the tenanted premises. I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioner herein to invite the attention of this Court to any documentation which could enable the petitioner herein to C.R. No. 650 of 2010 prove that he was direct tenant in the tenanted premises under the landlord. In response thereto, learned counsel argues that he is not in a position to produce any rent receipts as none ever came to be issued by the landlord. He concedes that the petitioner herein never ever served any notice upon the landlord, requiring the latter to own up the receipt of payment or issue a rent receipt in lieu thereof. The learned counsel concedes otherwise that no rent deed ever came to be executed. The contents of Ex.P2 are also supportive of the finding recorded by both the Courts. Ex.P2 purports to be a writing whereby respondent No.1 had conceded having handed over the possession to his cousin (petitioner herein) on the eve of departure of the former to England. The learned Appellate Authority further noticed that both i.e. tenant and sub tenant, were represented by the same counsel. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, this Court has a fairly limited scope for interference, particularly when there is a well reasoned concurrent finding of both the Courts in favour of the respondent – landlord. Finding no merit in this petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. January 01, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 2