The High Court held that the findings of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were not based on a correct appreciation of the law and were erroneous on facts. The Court found that the landlord had failed to establish that there had been any consideration that passed from Saleem to petitioner Arshad Ali or that Saleem was in exclusive possession to the ouster of the petitioner.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. Against petitioner Arshad Ali and Saleem in the petition for eviction filed by the respondents, an order of eviction had been passed Under Section 13(2)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act by the learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, on 2.2.1994 on the ground that the property in question has been sub-let by Arshad petitioner to Saleem. The appeal preferred by the petitioner with the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, was dismissed on 11.10.1995. Hence, the present revision petition.

2. Some of the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of the present petition for eviction can conveniently be relisted. The respondents alleging themselves as landlord of the shop in question had claimed eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent, change of user of the property which was stated to have been sublet without the consent of the respondents and that the petitioners have caused damage to the properly in question and impaired its value and utility. These grounds of eviction do not survive nor there was any controversy raised in this Court with respect to the findings of the learned Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority which were against the respondents. The sole surviving ground of eviction which is the subject matter of controversy is that the respondents case was that the property had been let to petitioner Arshad Ali who sublet it to Saleem for valuable consideration after the commencement of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , as applicable to Union Territory of Chandigarh(for short the Act).

3. The petition for eviction has been contested. In their joint written statement filed by both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 the said ground of eviction has been controverted, It was denied that the property has been sub-let or assigned to Saleem. The precise defence of the petitioner has been mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the written statement which reads as under:

That the contents of para 3 of the petition are wrong and hence denied. It is wrong that Arshad Ali has sub-let and portion to Saleem, respondent No. 2. The story set up is a lie of sheer concoction. In fact, Arshad Ali and Saleem are the real brothers: Saleem is the elder brother. Saleem has taken on rent the shop S.C.F. No. 43, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, where the business under the name and style Saleem Hair Dressers and Beautician Saloon is being managed. In fact, even prior to Ist June, 1976, Mr. Saleem is carrying on the business of Hair Dressing in this very premises also. The respondent No. 1 and 2 are real brothers and the respondent No. 2 being the elder brother is managing the whole affairs. Right from 1976, the business of hair cutting is being carried out in the demised premises as Saleem Saloon Hair Cutting and Beautician Saloon. The story as set up is a tissue of lie and sheer concoction. No portion has ever been sub-let and, in fact, the question of sub-letting does not arise.

That the contents of para 4 of the petition are wrong and hence denied, it is wrong that premises were let out for some industrial purpose. As narrated supra, right from June, 1976, the premises are being used for Hair Dressers Saloon and right from that date the business is being run under the name and style "Saleem Hair Dressers". It is wrong that carrying on business of hair-cutting, making available artificial jewellery and pan, cigarette etc. amounts to change of user of the demised premises. In fact, right from the year 1976, these business are being carried on in these premises. It is important to slate here that Sakeel is also one of the brothers of the respondents and they afforded every available opportunity to make him settle in the life as he was little bit financially week. It is also wrong that any portion has been sub-let by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2.

4. Issues were framed by the learned Rent Controller and parties had led their respective evidence. The learned Rent Controll