Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1170 (PNJ)

Joginder Kumar Mahajan v. Ashok Adhlakha

2007-05-18

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2007
Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This is landlords revision petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 directed against the order of the Appellate Authority whereby the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller against the respondent tenant on the ground of sub-letting, has been set aside. 2. In this case, on 10.1.1986, the petitioner-landlord filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Registration Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) against the respondent-tenants as well as sub-tenant for their eviction from the demised premises shown in site-plant (Ex.A12) on the grounds of non-payment of rent, sub-letting and change of user. The demised premises is situated on the first floor of the building and was let out to the tenants at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. 3. Before the Rent Controller, the case was contested only on the ground of sub-letting. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents No. 1 and 2 sub-letted a part of the demised premises, i.e, on room mark `X in the site plan (Ex.A12) to respondent No. 3-M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory, Mission Road, Pathankot, of which respondents No. 4 and 5 are partners vide Partnership Deed dated 25.3.1979 (Ex.A13). 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 contested she ejectment application and denied the subletting of the alleged room to respondents No. 3 to 5. They took the stand that for medical profession, the running of clinical laboratory is essential, therefore, earlier they had their clinical laboratory at their residence situated at Mission Load, which was being run by respondents No. 4 and 5 under the Partnership Deed dated 25.3.1979. Subsequently in the year 1985, a new partnership was constituted between respondents No. 1 and 2, 4 and 5 and Smt. Shakuntla Rani, mother of respondent No. 1, for running the clinical laboratory in the disputed room in the name of M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory. The partnership deed was constituted between the parties on 8.10.1985, though it was made effective from 1.4.1985. It is also alleged that the said partnership deed was got registered with the income Tax authorities. Thus, it was pleaded that the instant case is not a case of sub-letting, but it is a case of bona fide tenancy having partnership between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenants. 5. It is also alleged that the said partnership deed was got registered with the income Tax authorities. Thus, it was pleaded that the instant case is not a case of sub-letting, but it is a case of bona fide tenancy having partnership between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenants. 5. The petitioner contested the stand taken by the respondents by alleging that the alleged partnership of the year 1985 is not genuine and is a mere camouflage to avoid the ejectment on the ground of sub-letting. Before the Rent Controller, both the parties led evidence in support of their pleas. 6. The Rent Controller while considering and appreciating the evidence of both the parties passed the order of ejectment while holding that since 1979 respondents No. 1 and 2 had sub-letted a portion of the demised premises in favour of respondents No. 4 and 5 without written consent of the landlord and the plea of the respondents about the constitution of the new partnership in the year 1985 was an after-thought version in order to avoid the ejectment on the ground of sub-letting. It was also held that new partnership of the year 1985 is a mere camouflage and was created to avoid the ejectment on the ground of sub-letting. The Rent Controller came to the aforesaid conclusion by giving the following reasoning : (a) The admission was made by the respondents in their reply filed to the original ejectment application in which it was admitted by respondents No. 1 and 2 that they themselves were running the Pathankot Clinical Laboratory in the room mark `X in the demised premises and Shakti Kumar Prasher (respondent No. 5) was their employee as Laboratory Technician. In the original ejectment application, respondents No. 1 and 2 were impleaded as tenants and Shri S.K. Prasher (respondent No. 5) was impleaded as respondent No. 3. In the original reply, which was filed on 6.5.1986, neither there was any averment about the existence of any partnership between respondents No. 1 and 2 and Shri S.K. Prasher (respondent No. 5) vide partnership deed dated 25.3.1979 nor about the new partnership dated 8.10.1985 between respondents No. 1 and 2, 4 and 5 and Smt. Shakuntla Rani, another of respondent No. 1. It has been found that the story of partnership propounded by the respondents in the amended written statement was concocted later on, and the partnership deed (Ex. It has been found that the story of partnership propounded by the respondents in the amended written statement was concocted later on, and the partnership deed (Ex. R1) executed on 8.10.1985, is not a genuine document. It was created as a mere camouflage to avoid the ejectment on the ground of sub-letting. (b) The stand taken by the respondents that earlier. M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory was being run in a portion of residential house of respondent No. 1 under the partnership deed dated 25.3.1979, was found to be false. It is noticed that in the new partnership deed, there is no averment that the firm was running the business of laboratory at the residence of respondent No. 1 and now the new partnership was constituted for running the laboratory at the desired portion in the demised premises. It is further found that the address of the old partnership firm (Ex.A13) and new partnership firm (Ex.R1) is the same. There is absolutely nothing in Ex.R1 to show that the business of the firm has been shifted from the residential house of respondent No. 1 to the disputed portion of the demised premises. The petitioner examined AW4-Lal Chand and AW5-Kishori Lal, who got clinically tests from M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory in the year 1983 and 1985. They placed on record the reports, i.e., Ex. A10, Ex.11 and Ex. A14, given by the said laboratory which were signed by Shri S.K. Prasher (respondent No. 5) as Laboratory Technician. In those reports, the telephone number of the laboratory was mentioned as 834 PP, which was installed in the name of respondent No. 2 in the demised premises. It has come on record that the residential telephone numbers of respondent No. 1 are different, All those witnesses stated that they were getting the tests conducted from the laboratory which was being run in the demised premises. It was concluded by the Rent Controller that from this evidence, it is clear that M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory was being run from the demised premises even prior to the year 1985. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents-tenants that the said laboratory shifted its business in the year 1985 was found to be false. (c) The Rent controller further held that parting of exclusive possession of the laboratory has been proved and the same was not expressly denied. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents-tenants that the said laboratory shifted its business in the year 1985 was found to be false. (c) The Rent controller further held that parting of exclusive possession of the laboratory has been proved and the same was not expressly denied. In that situation, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove that it was not a case of sub-letting. The Rent Controller held that there is evidence on the record which reveals that respondent No. 5-S.K. Prasher was also doing the tests prescribed by other doctors which indicates that he was independently doing the business. It was also held that the respondents did not produce the account books of the partnership firm to show that it was a genuine partnership which was entered into between the tenant the alleged sub-tenants. Therefore, adverse inference was taken against the tenant in this regard. (d) The testimony of the witnesses produced by the respondents showing that prior to the year 1985, the laboratory was functioning from the residence of the respondents, was discarded on the ground that they were interested witnesses. 7. The respondents-tenants filed an appeal against the aforesaid order. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for additional evidence was filed to prove that an application for registration of the partnership firm along with copy of the partnership deed dated 8.10.1985 was filed in the Income Tax Department on 24.10.1985. The Appellate Authority allowed that application and photostat copy of the said application having stamps of the department showing the receipt of the application as 24.10.1985, was taken on record as Ex C1. Subsequently, after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the ejectment application while holding that the alleged sub-letting has not been proved, while observing as under : "The learned Rent Controller has laid great emphasis on what had been pleaded or not pleaded in the reply to the original application and what has been stated in the reply to the amended application of the landlord. It is to be noted that the tenant/respondents were called upon to file reply to the entire amended application and they were not to confine their reply to the proposed amendments in the application. It is to be noted that the tenant/respondents were called upon to file reply to the entire amended application and they were not to confine their reply to the proposed amendments in the application. In any case in both the earlier reply as well as in the reply to the amended application, the allegation of subletting had been specifically denied and the learned Rent Controller has erred in inferring that there was an admission on the part of the tenants in this regard. Since, the landlord had filed an amended application and the tenant/respondents were called upon to file reply, whatever had been stated in the earlier pleadings had to be ignored. Even if the tenants had omitted to mention in the earlier reply about the partnership deed dated 8.10.1985, yet the genuineness of this document is proved from the fact that it was field before the Income Tax authorities on 24.10.1985 as is established from the document. Ex. C1. As per partnership deed, Sarvshri Ashok Adlakha, Fateh Chand Adlakh, stood inducted as partners in M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory with effect from 1.4.1985. There is nothing unusual about making this partnership retrospectively effective from 1.4.1985 because it coincides with the financial year and moreover even the earlier partnership dated 25.3.1979, on which emphasis has been laid both by the landlord and the learned Rent Controller, was made effective from 1.4.1979 again to coincide with the financial year. AW2 Tarsem Lal has clearly stated that the new partnership firm was assessed to income-tax for assessment year 1986-87, which means that it was assessed to income-tax for the financial year, 1985-86. This further goes to establish the genuineness of the partnership deed, Ex. R1, dated 24.10.1985. Now, out of the five partners mentioned in the partnership deed Ex.R1, Dr. Ashok Adlakha and Dr. Beena Adlakha are admittedly the tenant/respondents No. 1 and 2. Fateh Chand Adlakha is father of Dr. Ashok Adlakha and Shakuntla Rani is wife of said Fateh Chand Adlakha and mother of Dr. Ashok Adlakha. Only Shakti Kumar Prasher is an outsider. But as can be seen, the control over this partnership vests with Dr. Ashok Adlakha and his family. As is evident from the bills, Exs. Fateh Chand Adlakha is father of Dr. Ashok Adlakha and Shakuntla Rani is wife of said Fateh Chand Adlakha and mother of Dr. Ashok Adlakha. Only Shakti Kumar Prasher is an outsider. But as can be seen, the control over this partnership vests with Dr. Ashok Adlakha and his family. As is evident from the bills, Exs. A10, A11 and A14, relied upon by the landlord and the learned Rent Controller, Shri S.K. Prasher has signed them as Laboratory Technician in all of them and not as a proprietor or partner. This corroborates the pleading of the tenants that the said S.K. Prasher is a Technician and their employee. Moreover, if the landlord had any doubt about the status of said S.K. Prasher he could have put him in the witness box. But it has not been done. It is the case of the tenant/appellants that earlier the clinical laboratory was functioning at their residence, which was quite near to their clinic, but subsequently, it was shifted to function within the consultation room of their clinic since the running of clinical laboratory is essential for the proper functioning of a modern medical practitioner. In this regard the learned Rent Controller has laid great stress by the fact that the telephone No. 834 of the clinic has been mentioned in the bills, Exs. A10, A11 and A14 and that if it had been functioning at the residence of Dr. Ashok Adlakha, then the telephone of his residence should have found mention in the bills. It has been explained by the learned counsel for the tenant/appellants that the clinical laboratory cannot function without supervision of a qualified doctor and for this reason Dr. Ashok Adlakha had given the telephone number of the clinic for the laboratory so that he could exercise direct supervision over the functioning of the laboratory and be contacted in his clinic during the working hours. The explanation given is quite satisfactory and must prevail. It may also be noted that the telephone No. 834 mentioned in the bills is accompanied by words PP which means that the telephone has not been installed in the name of the laboratory but this telephone can be used for the laboratory by request. The most clinching evidence in favour of the tenant/appellants and against the landlord is the site plan, Ex. A12, placed on record by the landlord himself. The most clinching evidence in favour of the tenant/appellants and against the landlord is the site plan, Ex. A12, placed on record by the landlord himself. According to the landlord, the room marked `X measuring 9 x 7-9" has been sublet to respondent No. 3 Pathankot Clinical Laboratory. As is evident from the site plan, there is no independent access to this room from outside the building. The entry to this room is from within the building under tenancy of the appellants. Hence, it is clear that no exclusive possession has been passed on to respondent No. 3. It is settled law that to prove the factum of subletting the landlord must establish that exclusive possession has been passed on to the alleged sub-tenant for valuable consideration. There is not an iota of any evidence that any valuable consideration has been paid to the tenant for the alleged subletting. Even if the allegation of the landlord is accepted that the laboratory has been functioning in the demised premises from its very beginning at worst for the tenants, it can be said that the room marked `X has been licensed to the respondent No. 3 for consideration but it does not amount to subletting. Thus, none of the two essential ingredients of subletting has been proved. Furthermore, the burden to prove subletting is primarily on the landlord, although it may be a light one, but in the present case the landlord has not been able to discharge the same and prove any subletting on the part of the tenants." 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller while ignoring the material evidence available on the record. The evidence, relied upon by the Rent Controller and the reasoning given by him, have not been dealt with by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority has wrongly taken the view that the stand taken by the respondents tenants in the reply filed to the original ejectment application, cannot be taken into consideration. Learned counsel submits that the alleged stand taken by the respondents is totally contrary to the subsequent stand taken by the respondents. This fact can be used as a piece of evidence against the respondents. Merely because the written statement was filed to the amended petition, the stand taken by the tenants in their earlier reply cannot be ignored. Learned counsel submits that the alleged stand taken by the respondents is totally contrary to the subsequent stand taken by the respondents. This fact can be used as a piece of evidence against the respondents. Merely because the written statement was filed to the amended petition, the stand taken by the tenants in their earlier reply cannot be ignored. Learned counsel further submitted that the Appellate Authority has adopted a wrong approach while dealing with the matter. It came to the conclusion that the execution of the partnership deed dated 24.10.1985 has been proved. On the basis of additional evidence, it has also been held that the said partnership deed came into existence prior to the filing of the ejectment application. Therefore, it was held that the said partnership deed was a genuine document. Learned counsel submitted that the Appellate Authority has totally ignored the evidence and the reasoning given by the Rent Controller to the effect that the said partnership deed was subsequently created as a camouflage to avoid the ejectment on the ground of subletting. Learned counsel further submitted that the additional evidence (Ex. C1) which was relied upon by the Appellate Authority, could not have been taken into consideration as the same evidence was taken on record without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the said evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the photostat copy of the application submitted by the respondents to the Income Tax authorities for registration of the partnership deed which bears the stamps of the Income Tax Department showing the date of receipt, is not per se admissible. Therefore, with the aid of this document, it cannot be said that the said partnership deed came into existence on 24.10.1985. Learned counsel further submitted that if that would have been the position, the respondents could have mentioned this fact in the written statement filed by them to the original ejectment application. Learned counsel also submitted that in this case the respondents did not place on record the accounts of the firm to show that actually the said partnership firm was established and doing its business genuinely. In spite of the fact that in the cross-examination the respondents had admitted that the accounts were being maintained by the firm, but the same were not produced. In spite of the fact that in the cross-examination the respondents had admitted that the accounts were being maintained by the firm, but the same were not produced. Therefore, learned counsel while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shah Phoolchand Lalchand v. Parvathi Bai, 1989(1) RCR(Rent) 299 : 1989(1) SCC 556, submitted that on account of non-production of the accounts of the firm, an adverse inference should have been drawn against the respondents. If those accounts of the firm would have been produced, the same could have gone against the tenant. Learned counsel submitted that the observation of the Appellate Authority that the site plan (Ex.A12) reveals that the room mark X is having no independent access from outside the building, is totally incorrect ad based on conjectures. Learned counsel further submitted that from the perusal of the site plan (Ex.A12) it is clear that the disputed room mark `X is an independent room and any person can have access to the room independently through the corridors. Learned counsel also submitted that the Appellate Authority has made out a new case for the respondents while observing that at the most it can be said that the room mark `X was given by respondents No. 1 and 2 on license to respondent No. 3 for consideration, but it does not amount to subletting. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence led by the petitioner to show that even prior to the year 1985 the Pathankot Clinical Laboratory was functioning from the demised premises, has not been totally considered by the Appellate Authority while reversing the finding of the Rent Controller. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the order passed by the Appellate Authority be set aside being illegal and against the evidence on the record, and the order passed by the Rent Controller be restored. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is not to be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction as the Appellate Authority after considering each and every evidence available on the record has set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority is not to be interfered in the revisional jurisdiction as the Appellate Authority after considering each and every evidence available on the record has set aside the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. He submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in their written statement filed to the original ejectment application, cannot be taken into consideration as after the amendment of the ejectment application and filing reply to the amended ejectment petition, the original plaint and written statement can no more be read as a part of pleadings. In support of his contention, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 relied upon the decision of this Court in Jia Lal v. Savitri Devi, 1995(2) RRR 243 : (1995-1) 109 PLR 742. He further submitted that from the evidence available on the record, it has also been clearly proved that prior to the year 1985, partnership firm M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory was operating from the residence of respondent No. 1 and only with effect from 1.3.1985 the said firm started its functioning from the alleged room in the demised premises. Since respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the partners in the said firm, it cannot be said that they had sub-letted the room to respondents No. 4 and 5. He submitted that the Rent Controller while adopting a hypertechnical view and giving much importance to the statement of few witnesses and the telephone number mentioned on the test reports, i.e., Ex. A10, Ex. A11 and Ex. A14, gave a wrong finding that prior to the year 1985, the partnership firm M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory was running its business from the room in the demised premises. He submitted that the Rent Controller has wrongly discarded the testimony of RW2, RW3, RW4 and RWS, who stated that prior to the year 1985 the partnership firm was running its business from the residence of respondent No. 1, which was situated on the same road at a very short distance. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that there is not infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Appellate authority, and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that there is not infirmity, illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Appellate authority, and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as Appellate Authority and perusing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside and the order of the Rent Controller is to be restored. It is not disputed before me that even if a part of the demised premises is sub-letted by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord, the tenant is liable to be ejected as in clause 13(2) of the Act, the words "sub-letting of the entire building or any portion thereof have been used. From the evidence on the record, it is clear that the possession of room in the site plan (Ex. A12) has been exclusively parted with and given to firm M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory, which is running its laboratory in that room. From the site plan (Ex. A12) it is also clear that the said room is independent one having its independent access from the demised premises. When originally the ejectment application was filed against respondents No. 1 and 2, it was alleged that the said room was sub-letted by them for consideration to Shri S.K. Prasher (respondent No. 5). In the reply, which was filed on 6.5.1986, a stand was taken that Shri S.K. Prasher was not their sub-tenant, but actually he was working in that room as their employee being Laboratory Technician. In the said reply, no stand was taken that the said laboratory was being run by the partnership firm M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory under the partnership deed of the year 1979 consisting of defendants No. 4 and 5 as its partners and the said firm was running its business from the residence of respondent No. 1. And subsequently the said partnership was reconstituted in the year 1985 by including respondents No. 1, 2 and Smt. Shakuntala Rani as its partners, and thereafter, the said firm started its business from the room in the demised premises. And subsequently the said partnership was reconstituted in the year 1985 by including respondents No. 1, 2 and Smt. Shakuntala Rani as its partners, and thereafter, the said firm started its business from the room in the demised premises. These facts were very much in existence when reply to the original ejectment application was filed on 6.5.1986, but respondents No. 1 and 2 did not disclose those facts at all and had taken the stand that Shri S.K. Prasher is their employee and running the said laboratory as Laboratory Technician. In my opinion, these facts cannot be ignored on the ground that the stand taken in the earlier reply is to be ignored after the amendment of the ejectment application and filing of the reply to it. Every party to a lis is supposed to disclose the true facts before the Court. They cannot be permitted to take benefit from the contradictory stand. Therefore, in my opinion, the Rent Controller has rightly taken into consideration the previous stand taken by respondents No. 1 and 2 in the earlier reply as a piece of evidence against them. In light, of that stand taken by respondents No. 1 and 2, the stand taken by the said respondents in the amended reply is to be considered. 11. The parting of exclusive possession of the room to the firm is also admitted and has also been proved. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have taken the stand that actually the partnership firm created in the year 1979 vide partnership deed dated 25.3.1979 (Ex. A13) was running is business from the residence of respondent No. 1 and subsequently in the year 1985 the said firm was re-constituted with effect from 1.4.1985 vide partnership deed dated 8.10.1985 (Ex.R-1) and started its functioning from the room in the demised premises. To prove the said stand, the defendants had examined few interested witnesses. But it is a fact that in the new partnership deed, it was no where mentioned that earlier this firm was running its business from the residence of respondent No. 1 situated at Mission Road and now with the re-constitution of this firm, it had started its business from the room in the demised premises. But it is a fact that in the new partnership deed, it was no where mentioned that earlier this firm was running its business from the residence of respondent No. 1 situated at Mission Road and now with the re-constitution of this firm, it had started its business from the room in the demised premises. The petitioner had taken the stand that the said partnership was subsequently created when the reply to the amended ejectment application was to be filed because in the earlier reply filed on 6.5.1986, these facts were not disclosed as the same were not existing at all. To prove that before filing of the ejectment application, a new partnership deed was placed before the Income Tax authorities for its registration, respondents No. 1 and 2 placed on record the document, Ex. C1 at the appellate stage as additional evidence. A perusal of the said documents shows that it is a photostat copy of the application alleged to have been filed by the firm for its registration which bears the stamp of the Income Tax Department showing that the application was received on 24.10.1985. From this document, the respondents want to prove that even before filing of the ejectment application, the partnership deed (Ex. R1) was executed and the same was in existence. In my opinion, the said documents has not been proved in accordance with law as nobody from the Income Tax Department was called to prove this document. Only a photostat copy was taken on record as additional evidence even without providing an opportunity to the petitioner tenant to rebut that evidence. Counsel for the respondents could not controvert the fact that the photostat copy which has been attested by the Income Tax Officer being true copy is per se not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. In view of the said fact, this document cannot be taken as a proof of the fact that the application for registration of the partnership firm was filed before filing of the ejectment application by the petitioner. 12. Secondly, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted in their cross-examination that the partnership firm is maintaining its accounts and regularly filing the returns to the Income Tax Department. The accounts of the firm as well as income tax returns have not been produced for the reasons best known to the respondents. 12. Secondly, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have admitted in their cross-examination that the partnership firm is maintaining its accounts and regularly filing the returns to the Income Tax Department. The accounts of the firm as well as income tax returns have not been produced for the reasons best known to the respondents. If the accounts and the income-tax returns would have been produced before the court, it could have clearly shown that when the said firm started its functioning and how much profit was shared between the partners. Those accounts could have shown that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were also paid some amount as profit by the partnership firm. Since these accounts were not produced, therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly taken an adverse inference against the respondents. These facts, in my opinion further created doubt about the genuineness of the alleged partnership firm. Further, the Appellate Authority has ignored the evidence of the petitioner to prove that M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory was running its business from the demised premises even prior to the year 1985. These witnesses AW4 and AW5, have clearly proved the reports Ex. A10, Ex. A11 and Ex. A14 which indicate that the said laboratory was functioning from the demised premises even prior to the year 1985. Counsel for the respondents could not satisfy the court as to how the firm M/s Pathankot Clinical Laboratory was using the telephone of defendant No. 1, which was installed in the demised premises. 13. After appreciating all these evidence, in my opinion, the Rent Controller has rightly ordered the ejectment of the respondents after coming to the conclusion that the room, which is a part of the demised premises, was sub- letted by respondents No.1 and 2 to respondents No. 4 and 5 without the written consent of the landlord and the alleged partnership of the year 1985 is not genuine and is a mere camouflage to avoid the ejectment on the ground of sub-letting. The Appellate Authority without properly appreciating the evidence and by taking the perverse view has reversed the well reasoned order of the Rent Controller even without meeting with the reasoning given by it. 14. In view of the position enumerated above, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.4.1991 passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the order of the Rent Controller dated 20.5.1988 is restored.