Civil Revision No.2094 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2094 of 1994 Date of decision: 13.01.2009 Malkiet Singh .............. Petitioner Vs. Nirmala Devi and others .............Respondents Present: Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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 ? -.- K.KANNAN, J. 1. The solitary ground that stands out before this Court is the ground of alleged subletting by the tenant. Two other grounds having been found against the landlord by both the Courts and therefore, the counsel was not incline to address arguments on the other grounds. 2. Before the Rent Controller, the landlord was successful when the Rent Controller observed that the plea by his tenant namely the respondent that he had been associated in his business at the petition mentioned premises with respondent Nos.2 to 4 by a partnership could not be true having regard to the consideration of fact by the Rent Controller that the first respondent was unable to give details of the profit and loss of the partnership, the non-filing of partnership deed right from the period of tenancy and the admission of the contention that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were exclusively in possession of the shop. The Appellate Court reversed this finding and specifically observed that there were two important instances which clearly established that respondent Nos.2 to 4 had been associated in Civil Revision No.2094 of 1994 -2- the business along with the first respondent at all times and the documents could not have been created only for the purpose of the case as wrongly understood by the Rent Controller:- (i) Telephone connection which had been enjoyed by the second respondent had been later shifted as early as in the year 1977 at the demised property and it stood in the name of one of the partners at least 10 years prior to filing of the petition. (ii) The income tax returns which were furnished before the Court related to the years between 1977-78 to 1985, all of which clearly established that the first respondent had been shown to be one of the partners along with other persons. The lower Appellate Court, therefore, reasoned that the mere fact that the first respondent was unable to recall in his evidence the details of profit and loss, was irrelevant and the documents which had the stamp of official credibility could not be doubted as having been created for the purpose of the case. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority is well considered and merits acceptance as appreciation on a pure question of fact which cannot be assailed in revision unless there is a brazen wrong approach the appreciation of evidence. 3. The revision petition is without merits and the landlord's action ought to fail. Dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January13, 2009 Pankaj* Civil Revision No.2094 of 1994 -3-