Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord, against the orders passed by the Courts below whereby the ejectment petition filed by him was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner-landlord filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against Prem Kumar son of Gurpal Dass, seeking his ejectment from the shop in question on the ground of non-payment of rent since June, 1985. During the pendency of the ejectment petition, in the application filed by Gurpal Dass applicant was ordered to be impleaded as a respondent, vide order dated 27.11.1986, passed by the Rent Controller. In pursuance thereof, landlord filed amended petition impleading Gopal Dass (instead of Gurpal Dass) as respondent No. 2, in the ejectment petition. In the ejectment petition, it was alleged that the respondent is a tenant under the landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/- vide rent note dated 21.3.1985. 3. The ejectment petition was contested by respondent No. 2 Gurpal Dass, alleging therein that he was tenant under the landlord and had got the shop in dispute on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- with effect from 11.1.1979 which was later on enhanced to Rs. 225/- with effect from 1.8.1981 with the mutual consent of the parties. It was alleged that the alleged rent note dated 21.3.1985 is a forged and fabricated document and has been created only to harass the answering respondent. It was alleged that respondent No. 1 is son of respondent Nos.2 and his whereabouts were not known for the last about 2 years. It was further alleged that respondent No. 1 Prem Kumar had no concern with the shop in dispute. It was alleged that the arrears of refit had been tendered on 8.12.1986 along with interest etc. and as such the petition had become infructuous. 4. In the replication filed by the landlord, it was alleged that respondent No. 2 had left the shop in March, 1985 to start his business in Himachal Pradesh and that his son Prem Kumar, respondent No. 1 again took the said shop and executed rent note on 21.3.1985. It was alleged that now the respondent had again come back and had sent his son some where else. It was alleged that now the respondent had again come back and had sent his son some where else. It was alleged that the rent tendered was less and for lesser period. It was further alleged that the landlord had accepted the rent on behalf of respondent No. 1 under protest. 5. After hearing both the sides and after perusing the record, learned Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment petition, holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between Capt. Amarjit Singh, petitioner and Gopal Dass (Gurpal Dass) and that the respondents were not liable to be evicted from the shop in question on the ground of non-payment of rent. The appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, upholding the finding of the Rent Controller. Aggrieved against the same, the landlord filed the present revision petition in this Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-landlord submitted before me that, in fact, respondent No. 1 Prem Kumar was the tenant by virtue of rent note, Exh.A1 dated 21.3.1985, on monthly rent of Rs. 300/- and that respondent No. 2 Gopal Dass (Gurpal Dass) was not the tenant and as such the rent tendered was not only short but was ten dered by a person who was not the tenant and as such the respondents were liable to be ejected from the shop in question on the ground of non-payment of rent. It was further submitted that the petitioner-landlord had filed an application for additional evidence before the Appellate Authority and that the Appellate Authority had not decided the said application while disposing of the appeal filed by the landlord and as such the order passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside and the case to be remanded to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal after deciding the application for additional evidence. 8. However, I find no force in these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord. 9. Coming to the second point first, I have gone through the appeal filed of the Appellate Authority. There is no application for additional evidence available on the file. However, application dated 10.4.1989 for further enquiry and taking into consideration the subsequent events, is available on the file of the Appellate Authority. 9. Coming to the second point first, I have gone through the appeal filed of the Appellate Authority. There is no application for additional evidence available on the file. However, application dated 10.4.1989 for further enquiry and taking into consideration the subsequent events, is available on the file of the Appellate Authority. In the said application, it has been alleged that during the pendency of the appeal, another ejectment petition was filed by the landlord against Prem Kumar on 29.7.1988 and Prem Kumar was personally served on 11.8.1988 and the certified copies of the summons and the order dated 5.9.1988 were attached along with the said application and it was prayed that the appellant may be allowed to produce and prove the said two documents. However, as referred to above, neither any prayer was made for producing these two documents by way of additional evidence nor any case was made out for production of those documents by way of additional evidence. On the other hand, as referred to above, in the heading of the application, it was mentioned that it was an application for further enquiry and taking into consideration the subsequent events. As per the heading of the application, it was an application for additional evidence. It was under those circumstances that it appears that the Appellate Authority had not specifically dealt with this application filed before him on behalf of the appellant-landlord. In my opinion, merely because the Appellate Authority had not disposed of the said application, on the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could not be said that any case was made out for remanding the case to the Appellate Authority for deciding the appeal afresh after deciding the aforesaid application. In my opinion, even if Prem Kumar had been served in the subsequent ejectment petition filed by the landlord, that would have no relevance so far as the present ejectment petition is concerned. The question before the Court in the present ejectment petition is as to whether respondent No. 2-Gurpal Dass (Gopal Dass) is the tenant under the landlord and whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Thus, in my opinion, no case for remanding the case to the Appellate Authority is made out. 10. The question before the Court in the present ejectment petition is as to whether respondent No. 2-Gurpal Dass (Gopal Dass) is the tenant under the landlord and whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Thus, in my opinion, no case for remanding the case to the Appellate Authority is made out. 10. Coming on merits, in my opinion, both the Courts below had rightly found that there existed the relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner Capt. Amarjit Singh and Gurpal Dass (Gopal Dass) in respect of shop in question and that arrears of rent had been rightly tendered. These findings given by the Courts below are based on evidence led by the parties and do not call for any interference by this Court in the present revision petition. It was found by the Appellate Authority that the rent deed, Exh.A allegedly executed by respondent No. 1 Prem Kumar in favour of the petitioner landlord, was only a paper transaction inasmuch as respondent No. 2 Gurpal Dass was in possession of the shop in question since 1979 as a tenant had never parted with the possession of the said shop and as such respondent No. 1 Prem Kumar could not be inducted as a tenant by the landlord when respondent No. 2 was already in possession of the said shop as a tenant. It was found by the learned Appellate Authority that the landlord had failed to produce any evidence on record to prove that respondent No. 2 Gurpal Dass had delivered possession of the shop in question to the landlord or to respondent No. 1 Prem Kumar and in the absence of any other evidence on record, the bald testimony of the landlord in this regard, could not be accepted. It was found by learned Appellate Authority that it was the admitted case of the landlord that Gurpal Dass was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises in the year 1979 on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and subsequently the rent was enhanced to Rs. 225/- per month. It was also found by the learned Appellate Authority that the oral evidence led by Gurpal Dass did not find corroboration from the receipt, Exh.R1, showing that the landlord had received Rs. 900/- as rent for 4 months, that is, for March, April, May and June, 1985 and the rate of rent would come to Rs. 225/- per month. It was also found by the learned Appellate Authority that the oral evidence led by Gurpal Dass did not find corroboration from the receipt, Exh.R1, showing that the landlord had received Rs. 900/- as rent for 4 months, that is, for March, April, May and June, 1985 and the rate of rent would come to Rs. 225/- per month, which was the rate of rent alleged by the tenant. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority had rightly found that by virtue of receipt, Ex.R1, it was proved on the record that the shop in question was on rent with Gurpal Dass, respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 225/- and that the rent note, Exh.A1 was only a paper transaction and by virtue of the said rent note, it could not be said that Gurpal Dass had ceased to be the tenant in respect of the shop in question. I find no illegality in the judgments of the Courts below which may require any interference by this Court in the present revision petition. 11. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.