Civil Revision No.3461 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3461 of 2007 Date of decision:09.02.2010. Ashok Kumar @ Ruldu Ram ...Petitioner Versus Barjinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S.Sandhawalia, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The tenant (petitioner herein) having lost the battle before the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority, both of which upheld the plea of unauthorized subletting by him, is in revision against the ejectment order. It is common ground, as at the time of argument before this Court, that the fate of the litigation would presently turn on the validity or otherwise of the finding of subletting. The learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority upheld the charge of subletting by relying upon the photographs Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 (Ex.A6 to Ex.A10 being the negatives thereof), as also the statement on oath made by Prem Singh AW1 and the entries in the municipal record. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner – tenant, argued that the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had attached undeserved importance to the photographs which only showed two persons appearing therein doing tailoring job outside the Civil Revision No.3461 of 2007 -2- shop. Those photographs, the argument continued, do not at all indicate that the petitioner herein had parted with possession in favour of those persons. In fact, it was argued, those two persons were around only with a view to assist the petitioner herein. There is no force in the plea on behalf of the petitioner herein. It is apparent from the photographs Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 that the averred persons (held by both the Courts as sub-tenants) are working inside the tenanted premises. There is, thus, no warrant for the factual proposition that they are shown therein working outside the shop. The petitioner herein nowhere figures in those photographs. The testimony on oath of the petitioner herein to the effect that those persons had been engaged by him to assist him in the business being run in the tenanted premises has to be outrightly negatived for want of any evidence supportive thereof. It is interesting to notice that Pal Singh (respondent No.5) was identified by none else or other than petitioner Ashok Kumar himself. He also conceded, as correct, a suggestion that respondent aforementioned (as shown working in the photographs aforementioned) is a tailor. He tried to wriggle out of the predicament by averring that respondent aforementioned works near the shop in dispute at Banur. He does not give any idea about where exactly that respondent works as a tailor. In fact, the photographs clearly indicate the functioning of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the tenanted premises. The photographs Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, appreciated in conjunction with the contents of the Municipal Register Ex.A13 and the testimony on oath of AW1 Prem Singh, are sufficient to affirm the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts which (finding) is relatable to and in consonance with the material obtaining on the file. Civil Revision No.3461 of 2007 -3- No other point was argued before this Court. In the light of foregoing discussion, the finding recorded by the learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority shall stand affirmed. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. Interim order dated 17.07.2007 shall stand vacated. The petitioner shall have two months' time to vacate the premises aforementioned. February 09, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE