Petitioner is a tenant of a building owned by the 5th respondent who sought eviction on the ground of rent arrears, bona fide need for own occupation and sublease. The rent control court allowed the petition on all the grounds. On appeal the appellate authority modified the order and granted relief only on the ground of sublease. The revisional court refused to interfere. Hence this O.P.

2. The building is alleged to have been entrusted to the 6th respondent on the strength of a lease deed. Petitioner was stated to be the sub-lessee. Sixth respondent remained ex parte. Petitioner alone contested the rent control petition. He denied the sub-lease alleged in the petition and contended that he along with the 6th respondent had taken the shop room for conducting business jointly. The lease deed is alleged to have been executed for and on behalf of petitioner also. He further contended that rent was paid by him since the date of commencement of tenancy, and that he was in continuous occupation since then.

3. The rent control court on a proper consideration of the evidence adduced on both sides came to the conclusion that the case set up by petitioner was not true and that he i