Judgment S.D.ANAND, J. 1. The learned Rent Controller, in allowance of a plea for ejectment filed by respondent-landlord, ordered the ejectment of petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on account of non payment of rent and also a finding of unauthorised subletting. In appeal, however, though the finding on point of arrears of rent was reversed, the other part of the finding qua subletting was upheld and, resultantly, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner-tenant has filed the revision to challenge the validity of the finding on point of subletting by the learned Appellate Authority. 2. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the finding recorded is perverse on the face of it as it is based upon the report furnished by the Local Commissioner who found one Tilak Raj to be available on the tenanted premises and he was found in the process of preparing a cup of tea. The Local Commissioner found that Tilak Raj aforementioned had had a bath and had changed his clothes as well before proceeding to prepare tea. It was the precise averment by the respondent-landlord that the petitioner-tenant had sublet the premises to Tilak raj aforementioned. 3. There is no warrant for the expounded proposition that a Local commissioner can not be appointed to visit the spot and report about who is in possession of the premises in dispute. The finding by the Local Commissioner may, in a given case, affirm the solitary basis of disposal and there might well be circumstances where the Rent Controller may require evidence supportive thereof. Even otherwise, the plea raised is oblivious of the evidence available on record to prove that the defendants-petitioners (who are successor in interest/legal representative of deceased tenant Shadi Lal Sehgal) had themselves given out in lot of documentation that they were residing elsewhere i. e. House No.11, Block No. XIV situated in Mohalla Dogran, Hisar. The following observations made by the learned Appellate Authority in para 17 of the judgment would be completely illustrative of that fact :- "after the death of Shadi Lal, there was no one to look after the said college and, therefore, Smt. Kamla moved application along with her affidavit Ex. P14 for transfer of the telephone connection, mentioning in the affidavit ex. P14 for transfer of the telephone connection, mentioning in the affidavit ex. P14 that she along with her son Takshinder Sehgal is residing in house no.161, Block No.14, Mohalla Dogran, Hisar, and made request for transfer the telephone connection in the name of her son. Appellants no.2 had also moved application Ex. P15 mentioning his address of house no.161. Further in Ex. P17 appellant no.1 has given her address of house no.114 Block No.14 Mohalla dogran, but she has not mentioned anywhere to be resident of Municipal No.11 block No.14 of Mohalla Dogran. In Ex. R1 and Ex. R2, judgment and decree dated 24.08.1998 placed on record by appellants themselves, in which they are plaintiffs, have shown their address as House No.161, Block No.14, Mohalla dogran. In view of the above discussed documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that the appellants are residing in house no.161, Block 14, Dogran mohalla, Hisar, and they are not in possession of the disputed property. The contention that Tilak Raj might be present in the house at the instance of appellants being brother of appellant no.1 cannot be accepted as the case of appellants is that landlord has filed instant eviction petition in collusion with Smt. Manorma and Tilak Raj of whom Tilak Raj is stated to be sub tenant. It is no where case of appellants that Tilak Raj was in permissive possession of the house in question at their instance and Tilak Raj was not in Civil revision No.2667 of 2009 -4- **** exclusive control of the house. It would also indicate that the appellants have not come to the court with clean hands and have rather taken a contrary plea that Tilak Raj is in collusion with petitioner. " 4. In that very context, the following relevant observations were also made by the learned Appellate Authority:- "the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that Shadi Lal Sehgal was residing in the house in dispute is also devoid of merit. During the life time of Shadi Lal, he along with his family was residing in their own house bearing house no.161, block no.14, mohalla Dogran, as this address has been mentioned in all the documents. In this respect Ex. During the life time of Shadi Lal, he along with his family was residing in their own house bearing house no.161, block no.14, mohalla Dogran, as this address has been mentioned in all the documents. In this respect Ex. P4 is the application moved by Shadi Lal Sehgal to the office of Municipal Council, Hisar regarding correction of his house tax, mentioning there that he is residing in the above said house no.161. The office of municipal Council, Hisar, had passed its order, copy Ex. P3 reducing the house tax on the application of Shadi Lal, during his life time was residing in house no.161, Block No.14, Mohalla Dogran, Hisar and not in the disputed premises. Ex. P12 is the application moved by Shadi Lal making request for grant of telephone connection for running educational Institute Tagore College on the disputed premises. In this view of the matter, it is established that Shadi Lal never resided in the disputed property rather he during his life time also was residing in his above said residential house situated at Mohalla Dogran, Hisar, and he was running an Educational Institute under the name and style of Tagore College. " 5. In view of the above noticed clinching piece of evidence, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is the tenant/petitioners who were residing in the tenanted premises and they were not residing elsewhere and further that the tenanted premises had not been sublet to Tilak Raj. The finding on point of subletting is relatable to the material obtaining on the record. 6. The petition shall stand dismissed in limine accordingly. However, the petitioner-tenant is given one month time from today to vacate the premises under reference.