A person can only be considered a tenant if they are liable to pay rent or rent is payable on their behalf.

J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by Ram Kishan, Tenant-petitioner, against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated February 15, 1980, whereby the order of the Rent Controller, dated December 23, 1978, directed his ejectment was maintained.

2. Pritam Singh, landlord (now deceased) filed an application for ejectment of his tenants, Amar Singh and others, (the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, the original tenant) and Ram Kishan, tenant-petitioner, alleging him to be the sub-tenant under Gurdial Singh, deceased. According to the landlord, the premises, in dispute, were leased out to Gurdial Singh on a monthly rent of 25/- vide rent note, Exhibit A-1, dated September 2, 1963. The said Gurdial Singh sub-let the premises, in dispute, to Ram Kishan Petitioner who was in exclusive possession thereof and thereafter, he was paying rent to the said Gurdial Singh. Gurdial Singh died in the year 1970. The ejectment application was filed on June 14, 1977. In the written statement, filed on behalf of the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, the claim of the landlord was admitted. However, the eviction application was contested on behalf of Ram Kisha petitioner. It was pleaded by him that the eviction application had been filed by the landlord in collusion with the respondents who were the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, deceased, who was very close to the landlord. He (Gurdial Singh) was a Munim and was working with Panna Munimi during his whole life and he never occupied the shop, in dispute. The heirs and the legal representatives of Amar Singh were in collusion with the landlord and that false petition had been filed to affect his rights adversely. The son of the landlord was working in the adjoining shop since long and the landlord and his family members were residing in the chubaras of the demised property. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller

1. Whether Gurdial Singh, deceased, was the tenant on the premises, in question ?

2. Whether Gurdial Singh sub-let the shop, in dispute, to Ram Kishan, Respondent No. 9, as alleged ?

3. Relief.

Both the issues were consolidated by the Rent Controller and it was held that the demised premises were leased out by Pritam Singh, deceased, to Gurdial Singh, deceased, who sub-let the same to Ram Kishan, petitioner, on April 14, 1964, vide rent note, Exhibit A. 2. As a result of this finding, the order of ejectment was passed. In appeal, these findings were maintained by the Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved against the same, Ram Kishan, tenant, has come up in revision to this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that Gurdial Singh, the alleged tenant, had died in the year 1970 and it has been admitted by the landlord that since then, no rent has been paid to him by his heirs and the legal representatives, bet even then, the landlord has not claimed any arrears of rent in the present ejectment application which was filed on June 14, 1977. According to the learned counsel, this clearly proves that the landlord was in collusion with Amar Singh and others, the heirs and the legal representatives of Gurdial Singh, deceased, to eject the petitioner from the premises, in dispute, otherwise Gurdial Singh was never the tenant, on the demised premises and it was the petitioner who has been in occupation thereof since 1963 and has been regularly paying the rent to Pritam Singh, landlord. It has been further contended that the landlord owned three shops, and two godowns in Faridkot and the landlord himself was residing on the first floor of the premises, in dispute, but he never claimed the ejectment of the petitioner earlier either on the basis of the non-payment of the rent or on the ground of the alleged sub-letting by gurdial Singh. Under the circumstances, according to the learned counsel, it is highly improbable that the landlord could keep