JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: - Both the civil revisions are at the instance of the tenants challenging the order of the appellate authority directing the eviction. They had been contending that the respective relationship of landlord and tenant had not been established and that the findings rendered were erroneous. 2. In both the above cases, the landlord was the same person. They were in relation to adjacent shops. In respect of the property, which is the subject of CR No.3676 of 1989, the landlord Dr. Rewa Ram contended that he had rented the shop in dispute to Maghar Singh described as the 1st respondent on monthly rent of Rs.20/- on 04.04.1952 through rent note executed by him in favour of the landlord. He contended that the 1st respondent continued till 1967-68 upto which time the tenant had been paying the rent without any demur. He had ceased to occupy the shop since 1968 and had unauthorizedly allowed to respondents No.2 and 3, namely, Karam Singh and Jeet Singh to occupy the property. The 1st respondent – Maghar Singh contended that he had never been in occupation of the property under the rent note but it was in the occupation of his father Karam Singh the 2nd respondent, for the last 30 years independently as a tenant from one Noor Mohd. Jeet Singh the 3rd respondent was himself the son of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, they contended that they were tenants only under Noor Mohd. who later migrated to Pakistan at the time of partition leaving the property as evacuee property. The property had been in the hands of respondents No.2 and 3 as actual occupiers of the property and they had made a claim before the Government for grant of sales in their favour in recognition of the long possession from the custodian under the provisions of the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. 3. The subject of dispute in the connected case in CR No.1356 of 1992 was similar to an eviction petition filed by Dr. Rewa Ram on the basis of rent note executed by one Jai Jai Ram on 04.04.1952. The tenant occupied the property and paying rent but he had later sublet the premises to Manmohan son of Bhagwan Dass and ceased to occupy the same. Jai Jai Ram – the original tenant had died leaving behind two sons and two daughters. Rewa Ram on the basis of rent note executed by one Jai Jai Ram on 04.04.1952. The tenant occupied the property and paying rent but he had later sublet the premises to Manmohan son of Bhagwan Dass and ceased to occupy the same. Jai Jai Ram – the original tenant had died leaving behind two sons and two daughters. One of his sons Shiv Narain died leaving behind two sons who were Ved Parkash and Sat Parkash arrayed as respondents No.1 and 2. Bimla Devi the daughter had also died and her legal representatives had also been added as parties. Manmohan the sub-tenant had also died and his three sons, namely, Siri Gopal, Kanti Sarup alias Kanti Parshad and Ram Parkash had been impleaded as respondents No.5 to 7. It is, therefore, contended that on account of the sub-tenancy which was made without the concurrence of the landlord, the tenants and sub-tenants were liable to be rejected along with the tenants. The landlord also contended that the tenants had made material and unauthorized alterations in the shop in dispute and have materially impaired the value and utility of the building. 4. It could be noted that in both cases the tenancy had commenced at the same time on 04.04.1952, one in favour of Maghar Singh that later fell to the hands of father and brother, namely, respondents No.2 and 3 while in the other case, the tenancy had been in favour of Jai Jai Ram that fell to the hands of Manmohan Singh son of Bhagwan Dass and his legal representatives. The crucial question that fell for consideration was whether the original rent notes claimed by the tenants were true. It is an admitted fact that their respective tenants under the rent notes were not themselves in possession but the possession was claimed by the immediate relatives, namely, the father and brother in CR No.3676 of 1989 and by Manmohan Singh who was a third party and his sons and daughters in CR No.1356 of 1992. In both the cases, the defence was the same that there had been no subletting and that the persons, who were stated to be the alleged sub-tenants were in possession in their own right. The landlord would not be entitled to seek for eviction without proving the respective rent notes and how the persons said to be the sub-tenants came by the respective possession. The landlord would not be entitled to seek for eviction without proving the respective rent notes and how the persons said to be the sub-tenants came by the respective possession. 5. In both the cases under the respective orders passed by the Rent Controller, the petition for eviction had been dismissed. The Rent Controller held that the possession of the respective persons that were alleged to be sub-tenants were directly under one Noor Mohd. and after he had migrated to Pakistan, the property had become evacuee property and the lease deeds said to have been executed in favour of the respective tenants were make believe transactions. During the pendency of these proceedings, it appears that Dr. Rewa Ram – the landlord himself had applied to the Government for an adjudication claiming the property as held by him originally as an assignee of mortgagee’s interest. The property belonged to Noor Mohd. and he had mortgaged the property to Manmohan Singh and Bal Krishan on 18.02.1939. The mortgagers sold their mortgagee’s interests to Dr. Rewa Ram on 04.04.1952. On the same date, he had created a lease in favour of the respective tenants. Dr. Rewa Ram, therefore, had applied for separation of interest under Evacuee Interest (Separation) Act, 1951. The Government had held that the mortgage had not been redeemed by the custodian and Rewa Ram, who was the purchaser of mortgagee’s interest had become the owner of the property. The claim by the sub-tenants had been also entertained for an adjudication of their entitlement to an allotment of the property by the State. Their claims were rejected while Rewa Ram’s right was upheld. The order passed by the competent officer was the subject of challenge in a writ petition in CWP No.3132 of 1988, which was brought for hearing simultaneously. This Court has delivered a judgment in the said case modifying the order passed by the appellate authority and holding that Rewa Ram was entitled to mortgagee’s interest and the claim by the sub-tenants who had sought for recognition of the right of allotment as not tenable. The case has concluded the issue that Rewa Ram as an assignee of the mortgagee’s interest could not have become the owner of the property. 6. Substantial evidence had been let which were with reference to the rent deeds. The case has concluded the issue that Rewa Ram as an assignee of the mortgagee’s interest could not have become the owner of the property. 6. Substantial evidence had been let which were with reference to the rent deeds. I have already considered the fact in the case in CWP No.3132 of 1988 that the assignment of mortgage was true and Rewa Ram was entitled to be in possession as mortgagee. A landlord under the scheme of East Punjab Rent Restriction Act need not to be an owner and if there had been a rent note created in favour of Jai Jai Ram and Maghar Singh, whatever previous interest that the respective tenants claimed under the previous owner Noor Mohd. must be taken to have come to an end. Here in this case (CR No.3676 of 1989), it must be noticed that the rent note was in favour of Maghar Singh when his father Karam Singh claimed as a tenant directly under Noor Mohd. In CR No.1356 of 1992 the rent note had been in favour of Jai Jai Ram while the property had been claimed by the alleged sub-tenant directly under Noor Mohd. In the later case Manmohan Singh was himself the mortgagee and he had assigned it on 04.04.1952 and on the same date, the rent note had been obtained from the mortgagee. When the mortgagee had assigned the interest to Rewa Ram and Rewa Ram executed a rent note in favour of Jai Jai Ram, Manmohan Singh would cease to have interest in the mortgage property claiming through Noor Mohd. In this case, the appellate authority has upheld on an elaborate consideration of evidence that the rent notes executed in favour of the respective tenants, namely, Jai Jai Ram and Maghar Singh to be true. It turns out that the persons, who are making claim to the property were immediately the father and brother in one case and the original mortgagee himself in another case. Consistent with my finding that the mortgagee’s right in property as an assignee has not been terminated, the power of such mortgagee to create rent notes and occupy the position as respective landlord cannot be questioned. In both these cases, the respective tenants have forfeited the rights by their denial of title of their landlord and for the same reason a sub-tenant also cannot obtain any right. 7. In both these cases, the respective tenants have forfeited the rights by their denial of title of their landlord and for the same reason a sub-tenant also cannot obtain any right. 7. Their own claim to paramount title with the custodian has been rejected in the decision which is rendered in CWP No.3132 of 1988. The tenants have admittedly not paid the rent, though, they wanted to contend that after the institution of the proceedings they had tendered the same. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord would contend that a tenant who denies the title of the landlord cannot have an adjudication made by the Rent Controller and afford an opportunity to the tenant to pay the rents. In Hukma Devi v. Bhagwan Dass, 2003(1) RCR 533 this Court has held that the Rent Controller is not obliged to assess the arrears of rent and cost in any situation where the tenant denied the jural relationship of tenancy. The Court held that the tenant cannot be allowed to deposit arrears of rent to escape eviction. If the tenant’s contention denying the claim under the tenancy is rejected, the persons in possession who were said to be subtenants cannot be protected. Their own claim under Noor Mohd. cannot be sustained, since on Noor Mohd. migrating to Pakistan all the interest of the property such as evacuee would become vested with the custodian and so long as the custodian has himself not legitimized the possession of the respective subtenants through any process permissible by law, they cannot plead that they are entitled to hold the possession against Rewa Ram, who claimed as mortgagee in relation to the same property. If the plea of the original tenant denying the jural relationship is rejected, the question of availing to anyone of the parties, namely, the tenants and the sub-tenants an opportunity to deposit the rent does not arise as held by this Court in Jagdish Singh v. Mohan Lal, 2004(3) PLR 78. Both the civil revisions are, accordingly, dismissed. -------------------------