On July 27, 1979 an eviction petition was moved by the landlord respondent against the tenant appellant and one Amar Singh, who is number a party herein, but was a party in the companyrts below, on the allegations that a portion of the rented land had been sublet by the tenant in favour of Amar Singh, described as the sub tenant.
The High Court allowed the eviction petition on such ground after granting permission to the landlord to introduce additional evidence.
The additional evidence is a certified companyy of the statement of Amar Singh subtenant dated April 15, 1977 more than two years prior to the institution of the eviction petition in a different suit in which the tenant appellant herein was number a party.
The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority held both grounds to be unsubstantiated which led the landlord to move the High Court in revision.
Eighty marlas, which is half an acre, of vacant land was rented out by Mohinder Kaur respondent to the Malwa Bus Service Private Ltd., a transport companypany, the appellant herein.
The High Court allowed the eviction petition on the ground of sub letting and this is how the case is before us.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Punjab Haryana High Court passed in Civil Revision No.
The other ground of eviction was bona fide requirement for personal use and occupation.
It is on the basis of additional evidence alone that the eviction order was passed.
Being number a party, the appellant obviously had numberopportunity to have that statement tested in cross examination.
1965 of 1984.
Ltd., the appellant herein.
