The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, specifically Section 15(5), and the legal principle that denying the relationship of landlord and tenant affects the entitlement to tender arrears of rent.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The tenant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 passing an order of ejectment on account of non-payment of arrears of rent after holding that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

2. Respondent Mohan Lal sought ejectment of the present petitioner on account of non-payment of rent from 1.1.1977 to 30.9:1982 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month in addition to the house tax. On the first date of hearing respondent-tenant tendered rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 1.6.1982 to 31.10.1992. However, in written statement, the petitioner denied the relationship of landlord and tenant alleging therein that the premises in question were let out not by Mohan Lal, but his brother Sham Lal. The rate of rent was disputed and it was alleged that in fact, it was Rs. 200/- per month.

3. In support of their respective claim, both the parties produced number of witnesses. However, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition holding that the premises in dispute were let out by Sham Lal and therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, learned Rent Controller held that the premises in dispute were let out to the petitioner herein at the rate of Rs. 220/-per month but the tenant is not in arrears of rent and thus dismissed the ejectment petition. In appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the finding on issue No. 1 regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and held that Sham Lal has let out the premises in dispute as an attorney of the respondent Mohan Lal and that there exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Maintaining the finding regarding the rate of rent of Rs. 220/- per month the learned Appellate Court found that the petitioner has not paid or tendered arrears of rent since 1.7.1977 and passed-an order of ejectment on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. Aggrieved against such finding, the petitioner has challenged the order in the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the landlord has not disclosed either in the ejectment petition or even in the replication that the premises in dispute were let out by Sham Lal on his behalf. There is no averment in the ejectment petition regarding letting out of the premises by Sham Lal. In the replication, in spite of specific averment in the written statement that the premises were let out by Sham Lal, the landlord has denied the factum of letting out of the premises by Sham Lal. It is further contended that it is the Sham Lal who has signed sale deed, raised construction of the shop and let out the premises in dispute to the petitioner. The petitioner never disclosed that Sham Lal is not the owner/landlord, and therefore, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between Mohan Lal and the present petitioner. It is further contended that the landlord has claimed monthly rent at Rs. 300/- per month, whereas the finding of both the Courts below is that the monthly rent was Rs. 220/-. Since the landlord has not been believed on the question of rate of rent, he should not be believed in respect of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the records of the case, I do not find that the order passed by Appellate Authority suffers from any material illegality or irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the East Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

6. The landlord has pleaded that the premises were let out by him. Whether through his attorney was not disclosed. Such fact has been explained by the landlord in evidence. It is proved on record that the premises were purchased in the year