JUDGMENT

PATTANAIK, J. - This appeal is by the tenant, challenging the revisional order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereunder an order of eviction has been passed on the finding that the premises in question has been sub-let and as such the tenant has incurred the liability of eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The landlady, Smt. Swaran Lata Respondent 1, in the present appeal filed an application for ejectment of her tenant Dev Kumar, the deceased husband of the present appellant alleging therein that said Dev Kumar has failed to pay the arrears of rent and has sub-let the premises in favour of Respondents 2 to 4 and, therefore, has incurred the liability of being evicted under Section 13(2)(i) and (ii)(a) of the Act. The tenant appeared before the Rent Controller and controller and controverted all the allegations made by the landlady. The allegation of sub-letting by him in favour of Respondents 2 to 4 was also specifically denied. The Rent Controller on appreciating the evidence led before him came to the conclusion that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between Respondent 1 and the appellant and the tenant had tendered the arrears of rent which was accepted by the landlady. On the question of sub-letting, the Controller came to the conclusion that the tenant Dev Kumar has sub-let the premises to Respondents 2 to 4 who were carrying on the business in the premises in question. The plea of the tenant that in fact he was carrying on the business as Commission Agent of Respondents 2 to 4 was not accepted. On this conclusion the Controller held that the tenant has incurred the liability of being evicted under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act and directed that the possession of premises be given to the landlady within 2 months. It may be stated that the Controller had appointed a local Commissioner calling upon him to find out whether the premises has been sub-let to M/s. Ram Saran Rattan Chand and the said Commissioner had submitted a report which was accepted as Exhibit AW 5/4 and the Commissioner was also examined before the Controller as AW 5. The conclusion of the Rent Controller on the question of sub-letting was essentially based upon the said Commissioners report and the evidence of the Commissioner. The aforesaid report has also been annexed as Annexure D to the special leave petition.

2. Against the order of eviction the tenant preferred an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Amritsar, who was the appellate authority reconsidered the entire evidence on record and reversed the finding of the Controller on the question of sub-letting. The appellate authority came to hold that except the solitary statement of AW 11 no other evidence was produced by the landlady to show that Respondents 2 to 4 are in exclusive possession of the disputed premises and that such possession is for valuable consideration. He also held that even AW 11 has not stated that the possession of Respondent 2 to 4 is for valuable consideration. The evidence of the local Commissioner was also fully discussed and the appellate authority held that the said evidence indicates that the tenant Dev Kumar still carries on his business in the disputed premises and has not parted with the possession of the same in favour of Respondents 2 to 4. The order of eviction passed by the Controller thus having been set aside and the appeal having been allowed, the landlady invoked the jurisdiction the High Court in revision under sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 3-4-1992, has reversed the findings of the appellate authority and relying upon the evidence of the Commissioner has held that Respondents 2 to 4 are in exclusive possession of the demised premises and the tenant has parted with the possession in their favour. Therefore (sic he) has sub-let the premises in their favour and the revision bei