J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Jullundur dated March 18, 1978, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, Jullundur, dated November 18, 1975, dismissing the eviction application was set aside and the eviction order was passed against the petitioners.

2. The landlord Bawa Gurdas Ram sought the ejectment of the tenant, Gian Chand inter alia on the ground that he had sublet the premises to Prem Kumar and Ved Parkash petitioners (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the ejectment application). According to him, the tenant had permanently shifted to Amritsar and had sublet the premises to the Petitioners without his written consent. Gian Chand did not appear in spite of service. The petition was contested on behalf of the Petitioner. The plea taken by them was that the premises were taken on rent by them at a monthly rent of Rs. 40. The said Gian Chand was not a tenant thereon and he had, thus, nothing to do with the building in question and that he was living at Amritsar for the last 12 or 13 years. The Rent Controller found that the landlord failed to prove that Gian Chand had sublet the premises to the petitioners. All the other principal pleas raised by him were also negatived. Consequently, the eviction application was dismissed. In appeal, the learned appellate authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of sub-letting as it was the only point urged before it. It was not disputed that Gian Chand was the brother of the respondents Prem Kumar and Ved Parkash He was not produced by the said respondents in evidence to prove that he was never a tenant on the demised premises. The receipt, Exhibit R.1. relied upon by the respondents was not believed by it. Thus, on the appreciation of the entire evidence, it was held that Gian Chand was the tenant under the landlord. The plea of direct tenancy taken by the petitioners was not established. Thus, the appeal was allowed and the eviction order was passed on the ground of subletting the demised premises. Dissatisfied with the same, they have come up in revision to this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on the evidence on the record, the landlord had failed to prove the plea of subletting taken by him. According to the learned councel, the petitioners had been occupying the premises, in question, since long and in spite of that no steps were taken by the landlord against them on the plea of subletting. Thus, argued the learned counsel, the conduct of the landlord in the present case was sufficient to show that he accepted the petitioner as the tenants on the demised premises

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this petition.

5. The case set up the petitioners in the written statement was that Gian Chand had nothing to do with the demised premises. From the very beginning, they were the tenants on the building, in dispute. It has been proved on, the record by documentary evidence that Gian Chand had taken the premises on rent from the landlord Bawa Gurdas Ram. Strongly enough, no receipt has been produced on behalf of the petitioners showing that they had been paying the rent to the landlord, except the receipt, Exhibit R.1, dated December 20, 1966. That receipt also does not prove that Ved Parkash, petitioner, was never accepted to be the tenant on the premises. At the most, some amount was paid on behalf of Ved Parkash vide the said receipt. It appears that Gian Chand, who was the original tenant thereon, shifted to Amritsar from Jullundur and that the rent for the premises, in dispute, was being paid by the petitioners on behalf of Gian Chand. The petitioners did not produce their brother Gian Chand, in evidence, to prove that he was never the tenant on the premises. Thus, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the firm findings of the Appellate Authority and to come to a different conclusion. Gian Chand happen