Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - Both the civil revisions are at the instance of the tenants challenging the order of the appellate authority directing the eviction. They had been contending that the respective relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established and that the findings rendered were erroneous.

2. In both the above cases, the landlord was the same person. They were in relation to adjacent shops. In respect of the property, which is the subject of CR No.3676 of 1989, the landlord Dr. Rewa Ram contended that he had rented the shop in dispute to Maghar Singh described as the 1st respondent on monthly rent of Rs.20/- on 04.04.1952 through rent note executed by him in favour of the landlord. He contended that the 1st respondent continued till 1967-68 upto which time the tenant had been paying the rent without any demur. He had ceased to occupy the shop since 1968 and had unauthorizedly allowed to respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Karam Singh and Jeet Singh to occupy the property. The 1st respondent – Maghar Singh contended that he had never been in occupation of the property under the rent note but it was in the occupation of his father Karam Singh the 2nd respondent, for the last 30 years independently as a tenant from one Noor Mohd. Jeet Singh the 3rd respondent was himself the son of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, they contended that they were tenants only under Noor Mohd. who later migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition leaving the property as evacuee property. The property had been in the hands of respondents No.2 and 3 as actual occupiers of the property and they had made a claim before the Government for grant of sales in their favour in recognition of the long possession from the custodian under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act.

3. The subject of dispute in the connected case in CR No.1356 of 1992 was similar to an eviction petition filed by Dr. Rewa Ram on the basis of rent note executed by one Jai Jai Ram on 04.04.1952. The tenant occupied the property and paying rent but he had later sublet the premises to Manmohan son of Bhagwan Dass and ceased to occupy the same. Jai Jai Ram – the original tenant had died leaving behind two sons and two daughters. One of his sons Shiv Narain died leaving behind two sons who were Ved Parkash and Sat Parkash arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2. Bimla Devi the daughter had also died and her legal representatives had also been added as parties. Manmohan the sub-tenant had also died and his three sons, namely, Siri Gopal, Kanti Sarup alias Kanti Parshad and Ram Parkash had been impleaded as respondents No.5 to 7. It is, therefore, contended that on account of the sub-tenancy which was made without the concurrence of the landlord, the tenants and sub-tenants were liable to be rejected along with the tenants. The landlord also contended that the tenants had made material and unauthorized alterations in the shop in dispute and have materially impaired the value and utility of the building.

4. It could be noted that in both cases the tenancy had commenced at the same time on 04.04.1952, one in favour of Maghar Singh that later fell to the hands of father and brother, namely, respondents No.2 and 3 while in the other case, the tenancy had been in favour of Jai Jai Ram that fell to the hands of Manmohan Singh son of Bhagwan Dass and his legal representatives. The crucial question that fell for consideration was whether the original rent notes claimed by the tenants were true. It is an admitted fact that their respective tenants under the rent notes were not themselves in possession but the possession was claimed by the immediate relatives, namely, the father and brother in CR No.3676 of 1989 and by Manmohan Singh who was a third party and his sons and daughters in CR No.1356 of 1992. In both the cases, the defence was the same that there had been no subletting and that the persons, who were stated to be the alleged sub-tenants were in possession