JUDGMENT J.S. Khehar, J. - The facts emerging during the course of arguments are that Jagat Singh, respondent, let out the shop in question to Prem Nath, tenant, in the year 1974 and a rent note dated 19.11.1974 was executed by the tenant with the landlord. As per the rent note, the tenancy commenced from 15.11.1974 at the rate of Rs. 60/- per month. The respondent Jagat Singh is stated to have filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, on 18.3.1977 before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar for the ejectment of the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had sub-let the premises with effect from December, 1976 in favour of Chander Parkash without his consent. The aforesaid petition was contested by the petitioner. In defence, it was specifically urged that the tenant had left India for sometime, during which period his wife had looked after the affairs of the Shop. The Rent Controller concluded that Chander Prakash being the real brother of the petitioner had been merely helping the wife of the petitioner in the absence of the petitioner to run the shop. Accordingly, he came to the conclusion that the shop had been sub-let by the petitioner. It is stated that the aforesaid petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated 20.11.1979. Long after the dismissal of the aforesaid ejectment application the respondent landlord Jagat Singh preferred another ejectment application on 15.6.1992. The instant revision petition has arisen out of the aforesaid ejectment application filed by the respondent landlord on 15.6.1992. 2. In the second ejectment application, filed on 15.6.1992, the case of the respondent-landlord was that the petitioner tenant had not paid rent with effect from 1.1.1992. It was also the case of the respondent-landlord that the petitioner had changed the user of the premises. In this behalf, it was stated that premises was leased out as a tea stall but was being used as a Halwai shop. It was also claimed that the respondent required the premises for his own use and occupation. Besides the aforesaid pleas, eviction was sought by alleging that the petitioner - tenant had sub-let the premises in question to Suresh. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether tender is invalid ? OPP 2. Besides the aforesaid pleas, eviction was sought by alleging that the petitioner - tenant had sub-let the premises in question to Suresh. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether tender is invalid ? OPP 2. Whether respondent No. 1 has sub-let the disputed premises to respondent No. 2 without written consent of the petitioner ? OPP 3. Whether respondent has changed the use of the property ? OPP 4. Whether petitioner requires the disputed premises for his personal use and occupation as alleged ? OPP 5. Whether present petition is barred by resjudicata ? OPP 6. Relief. 3. Issue Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were not pressed by the respondent-landlord and issue No. 5 was not pressed by the petitioner-tenant. Accordingly, the Supreme Court examined the only surviving issue, i.e. issue No. 2. Issue No. 2 relates to the question whether the petitioner-tenant had sub-let the premises in question to Suresh without the written consent of the respondent-landlord. In so far as the aforesaid issue is concerned, the petitioner himself appeared as a witness and deposed that he was inducted as a tenant by the respondent-landlord Jagat Singh. However, since his induction as a tenant, he has been selling tea and sweets. Insofar as the issue of sub-letting is concerned, it is claimed that he used to go to Dubai from time to time and worked there as a Labourer. On each occasion, he visited Dubai for a year. During his absence on each such occasion, the shop was run by his wife Krishna Devi. Suresh (arrayed as respondent No. 2 in the ejectment application) is stated to be the real brother of his wife Krishna Devi. It is the case of the petitioner-tenant that Suresh used to assist his sister Krishna Devi in running the shop during the absence of the petitioner-tenant. It is, however, specifically asserted by the petitioner-tenant while appearing as RW1 that his wife Krishna Devi controlled the business run in the shop and also kept the sale proceeds thereof. Suresh was examined as RW2 on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. His deposition was also to the same effect. 4. It is, however, specifically asserted by the petitioner-tenant while appearing as RW1 that his wife Krishna Devi controlled the business run in the shop and also kept the sale proceeds thereof. Suresh was examined as RW2 on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. His deposition was also to the same effect. 4. The statements of the tenant Prem Nath and Suresh, RW1 and RW2, respectively, were not accepted by the Rent Controller on account of the conclusion reached by the Rent Controller that the aforesaid statements were beyond the pleadings in the written statement. Having rejected the statements of the tenant and his brother-in-law, the Supreme Court accepted the statement of RW1, i.e. son of the landlord Jagat Singh and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner Prem Nath had sub-let the premises to Suresh and on the basis of this conclusion, he upheld the plea of ejectment of the respondent landlord. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has vehemently argued that rejecting the evidence recorded on behalf of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the same was contrary to the pleadings in the written statement is wholly unwarranted. In this behalf, pointed attention of the Court was invited to the following observations of the Rent Controller :- "....In reply to these averments the respondents in the written reply stated that the shop in dispute is run by respondent No. 2 under the control of respondent No. 1 and for his benefit. It is also stated that the shop is being run under the control of respondent No. 1. whose wife and other members of the family are helping in running the shop. This means that respondent No. 2 is running the shop and Krishna Devi and other members of the family of Prem Nath respondent No. 1 are helping as per pleadings of the respondents, but the respondents have led totally contradictory evidence........." 6. To show that the conclusions drawn by the Rent Controller were erroneous, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has drawn attention of this Court to paragraphs 4 and 5 (ii) of the written statement. The aforesaid paragraphs are being extracted hereunder :- "4. That Para No. 4 of the application is absolutely incorrect and vehemently denied. The respondent No. 1 has not sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2." "5. The aforesaid paragraphs are being extracted hereunder :- "4. That Para No. 4 of the application is absolutely incorrect and vehemently denied. The respondent No. 1 has not sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2." "5. (ii) That sub Para (ii) of Para 5 of the application is absolutely incorrect and denied. It is further incorrect and denied that the respondent No. 1 has permanently settled at his native village Chinttu, P.O. Kalewal Bhagtan, Teh - Garhshankar. It is also incorrect and denied that the respondent No. 1 had sub-let the shop in dispute to respondent No. 2 for consideration. The respondent No. 2 is the real brother of the wife of respondent No. 1. Hence, the question of sub-letting the premises does not arise. The shop is being run under the control of respondent No. 1 whose wife and other members of the family are helping in running the shop since its very start. The shop in dispute is run by respondent No. 2 under the control of respondent No. 1 and for his benefit." 7. On the basis of the aforesaid averments made in the written statement it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the statements of Prem Nath and Suresh (recorded before the Rent Controller) cannot be considered to be beyond the pleadings in the written statement. 8. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Rent Controller, dated 22.4.1996, the petitioner-tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority also rejected the claim of the petitioner for the same reason vide its order dated 18.5.1999. In this behalf, pointed attention of the Court was drawn to the following observations of the Appellate Authority. ".........The fact that the tenant has not been able to plead and prove specifically as to whether the shop is being run for him by his wife or respondent No. 2/sub-tenant, also creates confidence in the statement of this witness." 9. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the petitioner-tenant was beyond the scope of his pleadings. In my considered view, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller as also by the Appellate Authority that the statements of Prem Nath as RW1 and Suresh RW2 were beyond the pleadings is erroneous. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the petitioner-tenant was beyond the scope of his pleadings. In my considered view, the finding recorded by the Rent Controller as also by the Appellate Authority that the statements of Prem Nath as RW1 and Suresh RW2 were beyond the pleadings is erroneous. The collective perusal of paragraphs 4 and 5 (ii) of the written stated extracted above, leaves no doubt in my mind that it was specifically pleaded in the written statement that in the absence of the petitioner, his wife used to handle the business with the assistance of other relatives. It further emerges from the written statement that Suresh (referred to as respondent No. 2 in the written statement) was the real brother of the petitioners wife. In response to the assertion that Suresh (referred to as respondent No. 2 in the written statement) was exclusively running and controlling the shop, it was alleged that Suresh respondent No. 2 was running the shop under the control of the petitioner-tenant. Thus viewed, it is absolutely of the two witnesses Prem Nath RW1 and Suresh RW2 were beyond the pleadings in the written statement. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent wishes this Court to examine the observations made in the written statement to the effect".....The shop in dispute is run by respondent No. 2 under the control of respondent No. 1 and for his benefit." exclusively without any reference to the other averments made in paragraph 5(ii) of the written statement. In my considered view, the aforesaid submission of the respondent-landlord is without any force. The exact purport of the written statement have to be examined in totally and also by taking into consideration the averments made in the petition/plaint. If the averments made in paragraph 5(ii) of the written statement are examined collectively and in reference to the averments made in the petition, the conclusion would be the same as has already been noticed above. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord can easily be tested if the aforesaid extract of para 5(ii) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent has to be seen exclusively then the other averments made in paragraph 5(ii) are rendered meaningless. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord can easily be tested if the aforesaid extract of para 5(ii) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent has to be seen exclusively then the other averments made in paragraph 5(ii) are rendered meaningless. As a matter of an illustration, paragraph 5(ii) itself states that the shop was being run under the control of respondent No. 1 and further that his wife and other members of the family were helping in the running of the shop since its very inception. If the sentence, upon which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the respondent-landlord is read exclusively, despite the fact that it is a part and parcel of paragraph 5(ii), the assertion that the petitioner-tenant, his wife and other members of the family were running the shop since its very inception would be rendered otio se. In my considered view, the statements of the petitioner-tenant Prem Nath as RW1 and Suresh as RW2 were in consonance with the pleadings in the written statement. By discarding the aforesaid statements on account of the misbelief that the same were beyond the pleadings in the written statement, has resulted in the commission of a patent irregularity while examining the evidence recorded on behalf of the petitioner-tenant. 11. The Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority have drawn an inference against the petitioner-tenant on account of the fact that no documentary evidence was placed on record to show that the proceeds of earnings from the shop during the absence of the petitioner-tenant were retained by his wife and not by Suresh Kumar. In my considered view, expection of documentary evidence to establish that the proceeds in the business carried on by the petitioner-tenant, is certainly unreasonable. So far as the respondent-landlord is concerned, it is his case that the premises was let out only as a tea stall. The question is whether the proceedings from the tea stall or the sweets shop would normally be documented ? Would the sale proceeds of the tea stall or the sweets shop be deposited in a Bank account ? Would accounts be maintained with regard to the sale proceeds of the tea stall or the sweets as shop ? The question is whether the proceedings from the tea stall or the sweets shop would normally be documented ? Would the sale proceeds of the tea stall or the sweets shop be deposited in a Bank account ? Would accounts be maintained with regard to the sale proceeds of the tea stall or the sweets as shop ? In my view, the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority in expecting documentary authentication (at the behest of the tenant) to establish that the sale proceeds were passed on by Suresh to the petitioner-tenant Prem Nath or to his wife was certainly unreasonable. 12. Although the petitioner-tenant did not press the plea of res judiciata raised by him, yet the evidence on the record establishes that on an earlier occasion also, a Rent petition had been filed by the respondent-landlord inter alia on the plea, the petitioner-tenant had sub-let the premises in dispute. On the basis of the evidence, the Rent Controller concluded in the earlier petition that the brother of the petitioner helped Krishna Devi (the petitioner-tenants wife) during the absence of the petitioner-tenant. Identically same plea has been raised again in the instant ejectment application at the behest of the respondent-landlord. The aforesaid plea is sought to be substantiated by a bald statement made by his own son who appeared as his attorney. 13. In view of my conclusions recorded above, that the statements of the petitioner-tenant and his brother-in-law Suresh recorded as RW1 and RW2 respectively, were in consonance with the pleadings, it is natural that their statements must be given due weight. If the statements of these two witnesses are read in evidence, the only possible conclusion is that the premises in question wherein business of the tea stall and sweets shop was run, was being carried on by the petitioner-tenant Prem Nath himself and during his absence by his wife Krishna Devi who is turn was assisted by her brother, Suresh. There is nothing unnatural about this factual position in our social frame-work. The case of the petitioner-tenant now is that he has no further intention of going to Dubai and he has resumed the reins of the business activities. The veracity of the statements of Prem Nath RW1 and Suresh RW2 cannot be dispelled merely on the basis of the solitary bald statement of the attorney of the respondent-landlord. 14. The case of the petitioner-tenant now is that he has no further intention of going to Dubai and he has resumed the reins of the business activities. The veracity of the statements of Prem Nath RW1 and Suresh RW2 cannot be dispelled merely on the basis of the solitary bald statement of the attorney of the respondent-landlord. 14. For the reasons recorded above, I find in the claim made by the petitioner-tenant. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion and after examining the statements of Prem Nath, petitioner-tenant as RW1 and Suresh as RW2, a finding on issue No. 2 cannot be returned in favour of the respondent-landlord. 15. The petition is allowed. The orders of the Rent Controller as also of the Appellate Authority are accordingly set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.