Findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, based on evidence, cannot be re-appraised by the High Court under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by Chaudhary Ram (hereinafter described as the petitioner) directed against the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, dated 20.10.1992 and that of the Appellate Authority, Ludhiana dated 23.12.1996. The learned Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts are that Liba Sood and another had filed a petition for eviction against Naresh Syal as well as the petitioner with respect to the property in dispute. It was asserted that earlier Manmohan Syal was a tenant in the property. He had built a room and was running a powerloom therein. When Manmohan Syal left the property, on 1.9.1955 it was let out to Naresh Syal and a lease deed was executed. The said tenant was alleged to have not paid or tendered the rent from the year 1973 onwards and further it was claimed that he had sublet the property to the present petitioner. The petitioner was complained to be in exclusive possession of the disputed property and further that petitioner was carrying on dairy business in the said property in question. Other grounds of eviction had not been pressed and, therefore, it is not required that reference be made to them.

3. The petition was contested and Naresh Syal in the written statement filed took up the contention that he had vacated the property in June, 1973. He surrendered the tenancy rights. Since then he is not in possession of the property and he has nothing to do with the same. Thus, he has denied the liability to pay the same.

4. Petitioner contested the petition for eviction and urged in the reply that he had taken possession of the suit property when it was lying vacant. He came in occupation in the year 1973 and constructed one big hall besides two rooms. He started doing his business. In this process he denied that he is sub-tenant of Naresh Syal. Petitioner further claimed that he is in occupation, continuous, hostile and adverse possession of the property and has become owner thereto. He had even set up a water tank therein.

5. In the rejoinder filed the assertions of the petitioner as well as of Naresh Syal were controverted.

6. The learned Rent Controller framed the issues and held that between Naresh Syal and Liba Sood etc., there was relationship of landlord and tenant. It was held that tenant Naresh Syal had not surrendered the rights of tenancy. The petitioner had not become the owner by adverse possession. Accordingly, it was held that he was a sub-tenant in the property. As regards the ground of non-payment of rent, the learned Rent Controller noted that there was no tender of the rent and consequently the said ground of eviction was also available. The order of eviction was passed. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was filed. The learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the learned Rent Controller. Special note was taken of the fact the Naresh Syal had filed the written statement through the same counsel and that there was no surrender of tenancy of Naresh Syal. It was held further that petitioner came in occupation of the property sometimes in the year 1973. With these findings, the order of eviction was affirmed. Hence, the present revision petition.

7. A feable attempt was made to urge that issues had not properly been framed and, therefore, prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. But indeed the said contention has simply to be stated to be rejected. The law is well settled that once the parties lead evidence knowing fully well the case that they have to meet, in that event, the onus of proof of formal framing of the issues becomes irrelevant. It would only assume importance if it is shown that some prejudice is caused to the party. The said fact was not pointed out. During the trial the petitioner knew the assertions against him and the grounds of eviction. He contested the petition conscious of all that was asserted. No prejudice