The central legal point established is that without the relationship of landlord and tenant, the tenants are not liable to ejectment.

Rajendra Nath Mittal, J.

1. This revision petition is filed by Ved Raj Bhalla landlord against the order of appellate Authority Gurdaspur.

2. Briefly, his case was that he had leased the portion marked by letter `C to Puran Singh on a monthly rent of Rs. 80/- and portion marked by letter `B on rent to him at the rate of Rs. 45/- per mensem. It is alleged that subsequently Puran Singh vacated the portion marked with letter `C and sublet it to Krishan Puran respondent No. 2. He subsequently filed an application for ejectment against the respondents inter alia on the ground that they had not paid the rent and that he required the premises for his own use and occupation.

3. The respondents contested the application and controverted the allegations of the petitioner regarding portion `C. They further pleaded there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It may be mentioned that no dispute survives between the parties regarding portion `C.

4. The learned Rent Controller held that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Ved Raj Bhalla applicant and Puran Singh. He further held that Puran Singh had sublet the premises to Krishan Puran. He also came to the conclusion that the rent was not paid by Puran Singh to the landlord. Regarding the question of personal necessity he held that it was not proved. In view of the finding that Puran Singh had not paid the rent to the landlord, he ordered ejectment of the tenant. Krishan Puran went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority, Gurdaspur who held that no relationship of landlord and tenant was proved either between Puran Singh and Ved Raj Bhalla. In view of the aforesaid findings, it accepted the appeal and dismissed the application of the landlord. He has come up in revision against the order of the Appellate Authority to this Court.

5. The only question that arises for determination is whether there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Ved Raj Bhalla and Puran Singh and that Krishan Puran was holding the property as a sub-tenant. The learned Appellate Authority after taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence came to the conclusion that Puran Singh was not a tenant under Ved Raj Bhalla but he had taken the premises from his brother Inder Guni. He further held that after vacation by Puran Singh, Inder Guni had inducted Krishan Puran in the property. Both the conclusions are questions of fact arrived at by the Appellant Authority are not generally interfered with in revision in this Court. It has not been shown to me that the aforesaid conclusions are based on misinterpretation of any document. In the circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the said conclusions. In case there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the respondents are not liable to ejectment.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.