K. Kannan J.;— 1. The petition for eviction filed by the landlord that was allowed, was reversed in appeal by the Appellate Authority. The landlord is in revision before this Court. The petition was filed under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act for ejectment from the property described as A, B, C, D marked in the plan on a plea that the petitioner himself had taken a permanent lease of the property from BBMB with regard to Shop No.54, Main Gate, Nangal Township. The 1st respondent-Joginder Singh, who was having a tailoring business in Shop No.5, Sector 1, Naya Nangal had approached the petitioner with a suggestion that since this place of business was not sufficient and that he had a large clientele, he would associate himself with partnership with the petitioner. This arrangement had taken place in the presence of Ramesh Kumar, Dhani Ram Sarpanch and Guru Dutt, all whom were residents of village Babhaur, and Davinder Singh, who was an occupant in Shop No.49, Main Road. The contention was that as per the arrangement, 1st respondent would give 1/4th of the profits of the business to the petitioner and further a sum of Rs.200/- as salary for the services that he was required to render as a Manager. Under this arrangement, the petitioner was required to operate with only half the portion of the shop for tailoring work. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent breached his promise and stopped paying the profits in the business as well as the salary necessitating the petitioner to issue a legal notice to the 1st respondent to settle the accounts. The 1st respondent settled petitioner's accounts and agreed to the dissolution of partnership and entered into fresh arrangement with the petitioner to pay rent @ Rs.500/- per month. However, he defaulted in payment of such rent from January, 1985 till the date when the petition was presented on 25.01.1993. The petition for eviction was rested on four grounds. (i) that the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent from January, 1985 to January, 1993; (ii) the 1st respondent has sublet the premises to the 2nd respondent without his consent; (iii) he had caused damage to the property that resulted in impairment of value and utility and (iv) the petitioner himself required the premises for his personal occupation. 2. (i) that the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent from January, 1985 to January, 1993; (ii) the 1st respondent has sublet the premises to the 2nd respondent without his consent; (iii) he had caused damage to the property that resulted in impairment of value and utility and (iv) the petitioner himself required the premises for his personal occupation. 2. The respondents entered a joint contest and contended that apart from the averment that the 1st respondent was running a business in shop No.5 in Naya Nangal originally, the rest of the contentions of the petition were false. The respondent denied that he ever entered into a partnership arrangement in the presence of the persons named in the petition. He denied that he had offered to pay any salary to petitioner at any time for his alleged offer of services as manager. He would, however, state that the petitioner had secured the signature of the 2nd respondent on a blank paper on a plea that a rent deed would be written but the respondent's apprehension was that such signature could have been used for preparation of partnership deed. The 1st respondent denied that there existed any jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The respondent would state that the property in shop No.54 was on tenancy with the petitioner and one Ramji Dass, which was in two parts. The disputed part was with the petitioner himself and other part was with Ramji Dass by mutual consent where they were running a joint cloth business. The petitioner's own business was in partnership with one Davinder Singh son of Harbans Singh through partnership deed dated 01.12.1980 but later was dissolved on 01.04.1982. The petitioner had given up all his rights as a tenant under BBMB and forfeited his rights to Davinder Singh with whom he was having a partnership. Davinder Singh himself had applied for treating him as a tenant under BBMB directly and his request was accepted by BBMB two months after 01.04.1982 and since then, he was himself the sole tenant in the BBMB. The other portion of the property was with Ramji Dass, who similarly relinquished all his tenancy rights in BBMB in favour of Harbans Singh described as the 2nd respondent in the petition. Neither the petitioner nor indeed even the 1st respondent had any concern with the business. The other portion of the property was with Ramji Dass, who similarly relinquished all his tenancy rights in BBMB in favour of Harbans Singh described as the 2nd respondent in the petition. Neither the petitioner nor indeed even the 1st respondent had any concern with the business. The 3rd respondent Anmol Sharma filed an independent written statement contending that he had been running a chemist shop in Shop No.34 (mistake for shop No.54?) on the basis of document in writing executed between respondents no.2 and 3. The 3rd respondent had recognized the 2nd respondent as landlord and he was paying rent regularly to him. He had been retaining his stocks in the shop without any objection but at the instigation of the petitioner himself, the 2nd respondent's wife Harsharan Kaur filed a suit for injunction against the 3rd respondent but the suit was later withdrawn on 29.07.1991. The 3rd respondent continues in possession of the property without reference to the petitioner and the contention that the 3rd respondent is a sub-tenant under the 1st respondent is erroneous. The petitioner had joined issues on all these contentions raised by respondent Nos.1 to 3 contending that the averments that had been set forth in the petition were true and the contentions raised by respondent Nos.1 to 3 were false. 3. It transpired from the evidence that the 2nd respondent Harbans Singh was son of Joginder Singh, the 1st respondent and Devinder Singh was the son of Harbans Singh. The Rent Controller found that it was an admitted fact that the property had been originally granted to the petitioner as permanent lessee of BBMB. Raising the question of whether there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the fact that the petitioner was a permanent lessee from BBMB initially was itself a proof that he ought to have been, therefore, the landlord as well. He adverted to the admission of the 2nd respondent as RW5 that he was paying the rent to the petitioner regularly. It was also elicited in evidence that the 2nd respondent had sublet the premises to Anmol Sharma on a contract basis. He adverted to the admission of the 2nd respondent as RW5 that he was paying the rent to the petitioner regularly. It was also elicited in evidence that the 2nd respondent had sublet the premises to Anmol Sharma on a contract basis. The 1st respondent, Joginder Singh, had also admitted that the property in dispute had been in possession of his son Harbans Singh, who in turn handed over possession of portion of property to the 3rd respondent. These submissions were sufficient according to the Rent Controller to result in the consequence of forfeiture of tenancy when the 2nd respondent later contended that he had directly entered into contract with BBMB. The petitioner was explaining his own conduct in resorting to an action for eviction after a long delay from the time when the tenant committed default in payment of rent in 1985, the date when the actual petition was filed in the year 1993 by the fact that he filed a suit for rent but it was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 3 CPC and there being no bar to filing a fresh suit, the petition was subsequently filed setting out all the correct details. The Rent Controller, however, found that though the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was established, the actual rent as Rs.500/- was not brought out through appropriate evidence. The 2nd respondent has himself stated in the crossexamination that the rent payable to the property was only Rs.500/- per month but since even this amount had not been paid, he was liable to be ejected. The sub-tenancy itself being an admitted fact by the 2nd respondent that he had inducted the 3rd respondent, the petitioner was entitled to secure an order of ejectment. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was also found to have been established by the fact that the 1st respondent Joginder Singh admitted himself to have paid certain amounts by way of cheque but he did not explain why this amount should have been sent to the petitioner. The Rent Controller, therefore, inferred that these payments must have represented only the rents undertaken to be paid by the 1st respondent. The Rent Controller, therefore, inferred that these payments must have represented only the rents undertaken to be paid by the 1st respondent. In the same judgment rendered by the Rent Controller, it also bears out that the respondents had produced Ex.R1 purporting to be a deed of release by Baldev Chand fully in favour of Davinder Singh but the Court rejected the document as of no consequence since the property was admittedly taken on permanent lease originally by Baldev Chand along with Ramji Dass and relinquishment in favour of Davinder Singh should only be taken as illegal and of no consequence. Adverting to a notice issued as Ex.R4 by BBMB to Ramji Dass and Baldev Chand, the Rent Controller held that it was itself a vindication of the fact that property had been granted on lease only by Baldev Chand in favour of the respondents. The ineffectiveness of lease without concurrence of BBMB was quite different from the fact of actual lease by the petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent and the subsequent transfer of rights to respondents No.2 and 3. A plea of direct tenancy from BBMB itself was rejected by the Rent Controller holding that Ex.R4 notice issued by BBMB was a direction to vacate the premises issued to Harbans Singh, the 2nd respondent and Davinder Singh and there was no question of granting any tenancy to Davinder Singh or Harbans Singh. The respondents also produced a document of relinquishment by Ramji Dass under Ex.R3 but the Court was rejecting the said document also on a finding that relinquishment right of Ramji Dass in favour of Harbans Singh was in violation of clause of original allotment in favour of Baldev Chand and Ramji Dass and hence, was of no consequence. 4. Reversing the decision of the Rent Controller substantially in every one of the findings rendered by it, the Appellate Authority found as a matter of fact that there existed a partition in the shop and the property must be taken as existing in two distinct parts of Shop No.54. The ejectment itself has been sought for portion marked A, B, C and D, which the landlord said, had come to be in his possession initially. The ejectment itself has been sought for portion marked A, B, C and D, which the landlord said, had come to be in his possession initially. The Appellate Authority found fault with the petitioner in not describing anywhere character of allotment to Ramji Dass that he was only a colessee under BBMB as evident from the notice of eviction issued by BBMB to Ramji Dass and Baldev Chand under Ex.R-4. The site plan itself had showed that the portion marked as A, B, C and D was on the western side adjoining the shop No.53, whereas the other portion was shop in the possession of Davinder Singh, which was towards eastern side of the adjoining shop No.55. Referring to the documents filed by the tenants, it found that Ex.R-1 was a deed of cancellation of agreement in respect of the shop brought about between the petitioner, Baldev Chand and Davinder Singh in the year 1982. This document was found as evidence of the petitioner foresaking his right in the shop to Davinder Singh with a clear recital of expression of no objection to the allotment that could be secured by Davinder Singh directly from BBMB. The description of property revealed that it was adjoining shop No.55 and the subsequent conduct of Davinder Singh applying to BBMB for an allotment directly proved that Ex.R1 was true and BBMB had also granted a fresh lease in favour of Davinder Singh on 18.06.1982 regarding half share in shop No.54. The agreement Ex.R3, which was dated 13.09.1984 was also a document in proof of relinquishment by Ramji Dass in respect of his own lease rights in favour of Harbans Singh, the 2nd respondent after closing down the business, which he was running jointly with Harbans Singh. The document recited a consideration of Rs.14,500/- as having been price and that Ramji Dass had no objection if the allotment of one half share was made in favour of Harbans Singh. Ex.R2 and R3, therefore, brought out the fact that Davinder Singh had obtained a right of relinquishment from the petitioner to secure a lease directly from BBMB while Ex.R3 was a document that proved a relinquishment to secure a direct lease from BBMB in favour of Davinder Singh, each in respect of half share for shop No.54. Ex.R2 and R3, therefore, brought out the fact that Davinder Singh had obtained a right of relinquishment from the petitioner to secure a lease directly from BBMB while Ex.R3 was a document that proved a relinquishment to secure a direct lease from BBMB in favour of Davinder Singh, each in respect of half share for shop No.54. The effect was that both the original allottees namely the petitioner and Ramji Dass had respectively released their rights in favour of Davinder Singh and Harbans Singh through documents Ex.R2 and R3. While Davinder Singh had a lease executed from BBMB directly, the case of Harbans Singh itself was lingering on. 5. The Appellate Authority also reasoned that the edifice built by the petitioner that there had been a partnership arrangement between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was not established at all. Neither the partnership deed nor any account book was produced in evidence of such contentions. By the reasoning adopted, the Court found that there was nothing to indicate that there existed any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents and the Appellate Authority, therefore, reversed the decision and directed the ejectment. 6. Certain features in this case brought through oral evidence cannot quite be reconciled with the documentary evidence. In case of such inconsistencies, the question will have to be only whether oral evidence could supplant the documentary evidence or the documentary evidence would prevail to adjudicate on the nature of relationship between the parties. The documentary evidence relied on by the respondents are documents to which the petitioner and the co-allottee were actually parties. Ex.R1 shows that the petitioner and Davinder Singh, son of the 2nd respondent herein, have admitted themselves to have carried on a business in half portion of the shop adjacent to shop No.55 commencing the partnership from 01.12.1980 with an understanding to share the profits in the ratio of 10:90. The document also revealed that Baldev Chand had expressed that he was unable to carry on the business in partnership due to some domestic problems and therefore, he was settling the amount in respect of all types of profits and losses and he was receiving his own share from Davinder Singh in the presence of witnesses and he would have no concern with the shop and the rights of allotment as tenant, which he could have obtained from the BBMB. This document is not merely an instrument relinquishing his interest in the business with Davinder Singh but it was also an expression of intention to foresake his interest in the property and his right to obtain allotment and forfeiting the right in favour of Davinder Singh to secure the allotment. While BBMB itself could not be compelled to act on this and they could have independent right against the petitioner on one hand for his attempt to introduce yet another person without the concurrence as per the terms of original allotment, as between the petitioner and Davinder Singh, it was final and conclusive of what the parties were bargaining, for the petitioner was actually leaving it open to Davinder Singh to enter into a direct arrangement with BBMB for an allotment. 7. Ex.R2 itself is a testimony to the correctness of the recitals in Ex.R1 relating to the existence of a partnership that existed between the petitioner and Davinder Singh in the year 1980. Ex.R3 like Ex.R2 was a document of relinquishment, which Ramji Dass had executed in favour of Harbans Singh, the 2nd respondent. The same way as was discussed for Ex.R1, the document showed that in respect of the portion of property enjoyed by the 2nd respondent, which was not under the possession of the petitioner but must be taken as relatable to the partnership arrangement that he had with Ramji Dass and the subsequent forfeiture of Ramji Dass's interest in favour of Harbans Singh and his no objection to Harbans Singh, the 2nd respondent to secure a direct allotment from BBMB. These documents Ex.R1 to R3 are, therefore, clear evidence of the fact that the petitioner and Ramji Das had actually foresaken their interest in the property and had allowed for Davinder Singh (the son of the 2nd respondent) and Harbans Singh (the 2nd respondent) to take a direct allotment of the respective portions of the property in which they were in possession from BBMB. It is no doubt true that some amounts were being sent to the petitioner alongside the partnership, there appears to have been undertaking to make some payment to the petitioner but this, in my view, does not create any fresh lease nor would this be also taken as allowing for the petitioner to resurrect a right, which the petitioner had voluntarily given up through Ex.R1. The petitioner's right cannot be secured through the admission of the respondent regarding payment of certain sums to the petitioner when the documents showed that the petitioner had actually given up his right of allotment and was paving the way for the respondents to take direct allotment from BBMB. 8. Here is a case where the petitioner had originally secured an allotment from BBMB that contained express recital that he will not transfer his right in the property to any person without the concurrence of BBMB. If he was entering into any transaction allowing for a partnership with the 3rd party or he was allowing for the 3rd party to make a direct application for allotment and he was receiving some amount, he was indulging in certain acts, which were not regular. The petitioner, who had secured some benefit under transaction outside the terms of allotment cannot turn around to say that his own breach with BBMB must completely be effaced and he should have a right to secure ejectment of the property from the respondents. All this has become possible only by virtue of the fact that BBMB has now issued a notice to the respondents taking note of the illegal transactions amongst the petitioner and the respondents. The precept in law is in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis (in case of equal guilt, better is the condition of the defendant). I would not, therefore, afford to the petitioner a right to seek an ejectment to take advantage of his wrong in creating lease outside the terms of original allotment and it will be wholly of no consequence that BBMB itself is taking some action against the respondents. If the BBMB is prepared to recognize the respondents as direct tenants, the petitioner cannot have a grievance for the original breach which he had committed; on the other hand if they secure an ejectment of the respondents and resume the property even then such an action for resumption cannot fall to the benefit of the petitioner to take the property from the respondents. In either event, the petition for eviction cannot succeed. 9. The order of the Appellate Authority reversing the decision of the Rent Controller granting eviction was, therefore, perfectly justified though not for the same reason which has been adumbrated in the judgment. The revision petition is consequently dismissed.