JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): - This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2011 passed by Rent Controller, Bhiwani, ordering eviction of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is sub-lettee of original tenant i.e.the Bhiwani Government/Semi Government Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Bhiwani and further the judgment dated 22.04.2011 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, Bhiwani, was dismissed. 2. Shorn of the unnecessary details, it is suffice to say that respondent-landlord filed the application for eviction of tenant i.e.the Bhiwani Government/Semi Government Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Bhiwani on the averments that the said tenant is in arrears of rent and had parted with the possession of the demised premises without permission or written consent of the landlord and it is the petitioner who is in exclusive possession of the demised premises. 3. The aforesaid petition was contested by the petitioner, as well as the original tenant, by filing a joint written statement, wherein, it was submitted that petitioner was not a sub-lettee but original tenant of the respondent as the original tenant i.e.Bhiwani Government/Semi Government Employees Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Bhiwani, had merged with the petitioner vide order dated 16.06.1997 issued by Sub-Registrar Co-operative Societies, Haryana and its record along with liabilities and assets have become part of the petitioner. It was admitted that it was the petitioner who is doing the business in the demised premises. Rent has accumulated due to non-acceptance by the respondent. Petitioner was willing to pay but the petitioner refused to receive the same. 4. Both the courts held that after transfer of rights and liabilities by the original tenant to the petitioner, it stood divested of its rights and the same had been transferred to the transferee company. It is an admitted fact that consent of landlord was not taken before the merger. Neither landlord was party to the merger proceedings. Thus, the original tenant’s rights of possession under the lease/rent deed had been wholly transferred to the petitioner without the written consent of the landlord which is in violation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and therefore the petitioner as well as the original tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting. Thus, the original tenant’s rights of possession under the lease/rent deed had been wholly transferred to the petitioner without the written consent of the landlord which is in violation of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 and therefore the petitioner as well as the original tenant was liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting. It may also be relevant to notice that neither it is the case of the petitioner before the courts below that respondent/landlord has accepted the rent from it and has waived its right to eject. Even before this Court no such arguement has been raised nor the respondent/landlord has ever accepted the rent from petitioner, therefore it cannot be said that landlord has accepted the petitioner as tenant or waived his right to seek ejectment of the petitioner and the original tenant. 5. While passing the impugned orders, the courts below have relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s Produce Exchange Corporation Ltd. Hoshiarpur versus Som Nath son of Nanak Chand & Ors., 1983 HRR 303, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not distinguish the aforesaid judgment. 6. In view of the aforesaid, no error can be found in the impugned orders. Dismissed. --------------