V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by Nanak Chand and two others (hereinafter described as "the petitioners") directed against the judgment of the learned Appellate Authority, Karnal, dated 7.6.1990. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and instead passed an order of eviction against the petitioners with respect to the shop in dispute. The petitioners were granted a months time to vacate the premises.

2. The relevant facts are that respondent Bal Kishan had filed a petition for eviction against the petitioners with respect to the shop in dispute. It was asserted that Nanak Chand, petitioner No. 1, is a tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 35/-. He was running the business of tyre and tube repairs. Respondent Bal Kishan had purchased the shop from Smt. Notani Bal on 27.12.1978. The grounds of eviction pressed were that petitioner No. 1 had not paid the arrears of rent from 1.1.1979 to 31.8.1981 and that petitioner No l without the permission of the respondent-landlord has sublet the premises to petitioners No. 2 and 3 or at any rate had t