The court emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing the relationship of landlord and tenant, and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

S.S.Saron, J.

1. The landlord-Mathura Dass in this revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) assails the orders dated 18.1.1988 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Act and the order dated 21.5.1986 passed by the Rent Controller, Barnala.

2. The petitioner-Mathura Dass filed a petition under Section 13 of the Act for the ejectment of Sarup Chand and Ishar Singh respondent No. 1 and 2 from the one room shop situated within the Municipal limits of Barnala, as detailed in the head note of the petition. The case of the petitioner is that the shop in dispute was taken on rent by Sarup Chand (respondent No. 1) at the rate of Rs. 70/ per month from 1.8.1976 to 30.7.1977. A rent note dated 21.7,1997 Ex.A1 was executed by Sarup Chand (respondent No. 1). The petitioner sought ejectment of the respondent No. 1 and 2 on the ground of non-payment of rent as respondent No. 1 had not paid rent from 1.7.1976 to 31.5.1984 amounting to Rs. 5040/-. Besides, he had also not paid house tax @ Rs. 45/-p.a. for the period 1978-79 to 1984-85 amounting to Rs. 315/-. The petitioner also prayed that he was entitled to recover electricity expenses amounting to Rs. 386/-. The other ground of ejectment was that respondent No. 1 had sublet the shop to respondent No. 2 on 1.1.1984 and that respondent No. 2 is in possession of the shop and is running his business. In this manner, the petitioner sought ejectment of respondent No. 1 and 2 on the ground of non-payment of rent and subletting. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, Tarsem Lal filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a respondent to the petition for ejectment. The said application was allowed on 6.12.1984 and he was impleaded as respondent No. 3.

3. The respondents No. 1 and 2 did not tender any rent and filed their separate replies to the petition. However, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 2 was denied. It is stated that Sarup Chand (respondent No. 1) had not taken the shop on rent from the petitioner but the shop was taken on rent by Tarsem Lal (respondent No. 3) and he is in possession of the same since 8/9 years. Sarup Chand (respondent No. 1) never was in possession of the shop. The rent note was stated to be a benami transaction. It was stated that Tarsem Lal (respondent No. 3) had taken the shops on rent on 21.7.1976. Ishwar Singh (respondent No. 2) denied that he is in possession of the shop or that he is a sub-lessee. He also stated that Tarsem Lal (respondent No. 3) took the stand that Sarup Chand (respondent No. 1) had not taken the shops on rent and in fact he is in possession of the shop in dispute as tenant. Sarup Chand (respondent No. 1) is stated to be simply a benamidar and the rent note is a benami transaction. Tarsem Lal (respondent No. 3) further states that he has been paying rent to the petitioner which has been paid upto 19.7.1974 and he is ready to pay the remaining payment.

4. The petitioner filed his replication to the respective written statements of the respondents in which the material averments were denied and those of the petition were reiterated.

5. The learned Rent Controller framed the following issues and additional issue on the basis of the pleadings of the parties;-

"1. Whether there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1? OPA.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the respondent No. 1 has not paid the rent from 1.6.1978 to 31.5.84? OPA

3. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet (the) disputed shops to respondent No. 2? If so, its effect? OPA.

4. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to try the present petition? OPR

5. Whether the petition is frivolous and vexatious? If so, its effect? OPR 5A. Whether respondent No. 3 is tenant of the petitioner in the shop in dispute? OPR(3). (Additional issue framed on 11.1