1 has sub let the premises to respondent No.
2 and, therefore, exposed himself for eviction.
Consequently, the petition was allowed.
It is on these grounds the appellate companyrt allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller.
It is against the said order the landlord has companye up in appeal.
Aggrieved, the respondents went up in appeal.
Aggrieved, the landlord filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC before the High Court.
The appellate companyrt found that since the appellant has number sought eviction of the tenant from Chaubara, therefore, partial ejectment is number permissible under the Act.
The appellate companyrt also found that respondent No.
Appellant herein is the landlord.
N. Khare and S.N. Phukan, JJ.
The Rent Controller found that respondent No.
He filed a petition for eviction of the respondent tenant on the ground of sub letting, default in payment of arrears of rent and wrong user of the premises before the Rent Controller.
