Rakesh Garg, J. 1. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the judgment dated 8.8.2012 of the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar whereby appeal filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady against the order dated 21.2.2011 of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar has been accepted and eviction of the petitioner has been ordered from the premises in dispute. The respondent-landlady filed the ejectment petition against the petitioner on the ground that he is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996 at a monthly rent of ` 1,000/-. 2. The petitioner-tenant filed written statement stating that the respondent was not the landlady and he had taken the shop in question on rent from one Ajay Kumar Sehgal on a monthly rent of ` 400/-. It was further stated that Vinay Sehgal brother of Ajay Kumar Sehgal was also a co-owner but the petitioner was regularly paying the rent to Ajay Kumar Sehgal and at times he was also issuing receipts. However, after the death of Vinay Sehgal, his widow Gulshan Sehgal (now respondent) also started claiming rent. It was further stated that the petitioner had tendered the rent from 1.12.1999 to 31.3.2000 @ ` 400/- per month before the Rent Controller in a separate rent petition filed by Ajay Kumar Sehgal and prior thereto, he had paid up to date rent to said Sh. Ajay Kumar Sehgal and therefore, the petitioner was not in arrears of rent and thus, the ground of non-payment of rent was not available to the respondent-landlady for ejectment of the petitioner. 3. From the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: 1. Whether respondent has not paid the rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996 at a monthly rent of ` 1000/-? OPA 2. Whether petition is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPR 3. Whether the petitioner has concealed the material true facts from the Court? OPR 4. Relief. 4. After going through the pleadings of the parties and affording opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dismissed the ejectment application. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlady filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlady filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority while allowing the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent-landlady observed as under: I have considered the arguments advanced before me and I also gone through the evidence produced on record by both the parties before the Rent Controller. Mrs. Gulshan Sehgal landlady filed ejectment application against Harsharan Singh claiming rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996 @ ` 1000/- per month. She sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground of nonpayment of rent. On the other hand, the respondent/tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He alleged that the rate of rent was ` 400/- per month. The tenant claimed Ajay Kumar Sehgal as his landlord and further asserted that he has already paid rent to the landlord, therefore, no rent is due regarding the premises in dispute. In order to decide the present case, firstly relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is to be decided. Mrs. Gulshan Sehgal claimed herself to be landlady of the shop in dispute. She stepped into the witness box as AW 3 to confirm the facts stated in the ejectment application. She has examined Dev Raj AW 1 to prove the electricity connection No. KR-39/0024 standing in the name of her husband Vinay Kumar Sehgal. Apart from this she has examined Shri Narinder Singh, Advocate AW 2 in order to establish the earlier litigation with the tenant in which he conceded Mrs. Gulshan Sehgal as landlady of the premises in dispute. Shri Narinder Singh, Advocate AW 2 has proved the plaint in Civil Suit No. 244/99 titled as Harcharan Singh son of Harsharan Singh v. Jatti and others in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants including Mrs. Gulshan Sehgal from interfering into peaceful possession over the shop in dispute. Certified copy of the plaint signed by Sh. Narinder Singh, Advocate as counsel for plaintiff Harsharan Singh is Ex. PW 2/1. In para No. 1 of the plaint Harsharan Singh conceded that he is tenant of Mrs. Vinay Sehgal in the shop at monthly rent of ` 400/- The civil suit for permanent injunction was filed on 27.9.1999. During pendency of this case, the counsel for defendant No. 3 i.e. Mrs. PW 2/1. In para No. 1 of the plaint Harsharan Singh conceded that he is tenant of Mrs. Vinay Sehgal in the shop at monthly rent of ` 400/- The civil suit for permanent injunction was filed on 27.9.1999. During pendency of this case, the counsel for defendant No. 3 i.e. Mrs. Vinay Sehgal gave a statement that defendant No. 3 will not forcibly dispossess the plaintiff except in due course of law. Certified copy of the statement is Ex. PW 3/2. On the same day Shri Narinder Singh, Advocate counsel for plaintiff Harsharan Singh also gave a statement to withdraw the suit. The said statement is Ex. PW 3/3. The order passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar dated 10.1.2000 is Ex. PW 3/4 vide which suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of statement given by counsel for defendant No. 3 Mrs, Vinay Sehgal. The entire pleadings are proved on the file by Shri Narinder Singh Advocate AW 2 and Mrs. Gulshan Sehgal wife of Vinay Sehgal AW 3. The Rent Controller has discarded the entire testimony of Shri Narinder Singh, Advocate AW 2 by giving undue emphasis to the point that he has stated that he did not know the plaintiff personally. When any case is filed by a party by engaging an advocate there is relationship of advocate and client between the parties. The lawyer is not bound to know his or her client personally. The litigation referred above has never been challenged by the respondent/tenant. The Rent Controller was not justified to discard the above said civil litigation started between the parties on flimsy grounds. Rather, civil litigation proved on the file clearly shows that Harsharan Singh admitted Mrs. Gulshan Sehgal wife of Vinay Sehgal as landlady of the shop in dispute. Therefore, from the admission of this fact in the above said civil suit for permanent injunction, relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is proved on the file on the basis of admission of tenant/respondent. 11. The other matter in controversy is rate of rent and the fact if the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996, as claimed by the landlady. In order to establish the rate of rent as ` 1000/- per month, apart from the oral statement of Mrs. 11. The other matter in controversy is rate of rent and the fact if the tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996, as claimed by the landlady. In order to establish the rate of rent as ` 1000/- per month, apart from the oral statement of Mrs. Gulshan Sehgal AW 3, no other evidence is led by the landlady. The application filed by the landlady to lead additional evidence to prove the rent note is not justified. In the ejectment application she has not referred to any rent note, therefore, by way additional evidence she cannot be permitted to lead evidence on that point, which is not even pleaded in the ejectment application. Therefore, at this belated stage, application for permission to lead additional evidence is not justified and the same is declined. 12. On the other hand, there is copy of plaint Ex. PW 2/1 in which Harsharan Singh admitted Mrs. Vinay Sehgal as his landlady and has admitted that he is tenant in the shop @ ` 400/- per month. Keeping in view the evidence on record, the rate of rent claimed by the landlord is not established on the file as ` 1000/- per month. Therefore the contention of the tenant that he is tenant in the shop in question @ ` 400/- per month is accepted. The respondent claimed that he had paid rent to Ajay Kumar Sehgal upto 31.3.2000 in the court of Shri Sangeet Pal Singh, Rent Controller, Jalandhar. He stepped into the witness box as RW 1 and has placed on record receipts regarding payment of rent which are Ex. R1 to Ex. R83. Uma Sehgal as power of attorney holder of Ajay Kumar Sehgal RW 2 has also admitted these receipts. The landlord has claimed the rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Onus was heavily on the tenant to establish that rent has been paid upto date for the above said period. The rent receipts which are placed on record are pertaining to April, 2002, September, 2008. The tenant has failed to place on record any document that he has paid rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996 upto date i.e. 14.2.2000 when ejectment application was filed by the landlady. The version put forward by the tenant that he paid rent to Ajay Kumar Sehgal, cannot be believed. The tenant has failed to place on record any document that he has paid rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996 upto date i.e. 14.2.2000 when ejectment application was filed by the landlady. The version put forward by the tenant that he paid rent to Ajay Kumar Sehgal, cannot be believed. The respondent/tenant himself filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant including appellant/landlady restraining them from dispossessing him from the shop in dispute illegally and forcibly. That civil suit was filed on 27.9.1999. The case was ultimately withdrawn on 10.1.2000. Once the respondent/tenant admitted the appellant as his landlady, there was no occasion for him to make payment of rent to a third person. The rent receipts produced by the tenant cannot be safely relied upon. It is matter of record that civil litigation is going on between legal heirs and Vinay Kumar Sehgal and Ajay Kumar Sehgal regarding partition of their property. Ajay Kumar Sehgal never stepped into the witness box personally. He has appeared through his attorney i.e. his wife Uma Sehgal RW 2. The rent receipts claimed by the respondent cannot be safely relied upon in view of civil litigation already going on between the legal heirs of Vinay Kumar Sehgal and Ajay Kumar Sehgal and others. Therefore, the respondent/tenant has failed to lead any evidence on record to establish that he has paid rent to the landlady w.e.f. 1.1.1996 regarding the shop in question. The findings given by the Rent Controller while dismissing the ejectment application are not justified. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.2.2011 is accordingly set aside. The respondent/tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996 @ ` 400/- per month which he has failed to tender on the first date of hearing. The plea taken by the respondent/tenant denying the relationship of landlord and tenant is also without any justification. Therefore, I find merit in the ejectment application filed by Mrs. Gulshan Sehgal landlady against tenant Harsharan Singh for non-payment of rent and the ejectment application is accordingly allowed as prayed for with costs. Respondent Harsharan Singh is ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute with a direction to handover vacant possession of the shop within a period of two months from the date of ejectment order, failing which the appellant/landlady can seek assistance of the court to get a vacant possession of the shop. Memo of costs be prepared. Respondent Harsharan Singh is ordered to be evicted from the premises in dispute with a direction to handover vacant possession of the shop within a period of two months from the date of ejectment order, failing which the appellant/landlady can seek assistance of the court to get a vacant possession of the shop. Memo of costs be prepared. Lower court file be returned with copy of judgment. The appeal filed be consigned to the record room. 6. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Authority, the tenant-petitioner has filed the instant petition submitting that the relationship of landlady and tenant has not been proved on record of the case and the Appellate Authority has failed to consider that since the inception of the tenancy, the petitioner was regularly paying the rent to Sh. Ajay Kumar Sehgal, who was a co-sharer in the suit property and the fact of payment of rent is also proved from the receipts placed on record and the respondent-landlady was at liberty to claim the rent from her co-sharer who had admittedly received the rents from him and the petitioner cannot be burdened to pay rent twice to each of the co-sharer. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority has wrongly placed reliance on the civil litigation allegedly filed by the petitioner against the respondent through one Sh. Narinder Singh, Advocate whereas the petitioner in his written statement has categorically denied the factum of filing any suit on his behalf against the respondent and in case such a civil suit is found to have been filed in the name of the petitioner, the same is a result of fraud on the petitioner as well as the Court, thus, it was the bounden duty of the respondent to show that the civil suit was in fact filed by the petitioner whereas there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner was a tenant under the respondent and in view of the aforesaid fact that relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved between the parties, the eviction of the petitioner could not have been ordered on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority. 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority. 8. At the outset, it may be noticed that in the instant case, the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties stand proved. The factum of petitioner claiming himself as tenant of the respondent has been duly proved in the previous civil litigation started between the parties on behalf of the petitioner against the respondent from the certified copy of the plaint in a Civil Case No. 244/99 decided on 10.1.2000 as Ex. PW 2/1. The said suit for permanent injunction was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of counsel for the respondent. Certified copy of the statement made by Sh. D.N. Bahri, Advocate is Ex. PW 3/2 and certified copy of the statement given by Sh. Narinder Singh, Advocate, who represented the petitioner, is Ex. PW 3/3 whereas the certified copy of the order dated 10.1.2000 is Ex. PW 3/4. The aforesaid documents have been further proved from the testimony of Sh. Narinder Singh, Advocate AW-2, who has proved the plaint in Civil Suit No. 244/99 titled as Harcha-ran Singh son of Harsharan Singh v. Jatti and others in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants including the respondent-Gulshan Sehgal from interfering into peaceful possession over the shop in dispute. In para. No. 1 of the said suit, Harsharan Singh conceded that he was tenant of landlord Vinay Sehgal (i.e. husband of the respondent) in the shop in dispute at a monthly rent of ` 400/-. The entire pleadings and the other record of civil suit has been proved from the testimony of AW-2 Narinder Singh, Advocate and landlady Gulshan Sehgal wife of Vinay Sehgal AW-3. Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the aforesaid litigation has never been challenged by the petitioner-tenant on any ground. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that though in the pleadings, the petitioner has denied the existence of any such litigation and has further stated that if any such litigation proved to be in existence, the same is the result of fraud, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any instance of fraud committed by the respondent as alleged with regard to the civil litigation. From the aforesaid averments made in the civil litigation, relationship of landlord and tenant stands proved between the parties. From the aforesaid averments made in the civil litigation, relationship of landlord and tenant stands proved between the parties. 9. It may further be noticed that the petitioner has claimed that he had paid rent to Ajay Kumar Sehgal up to 31.3.2000 before the Rent Controller, Jalandhar vide Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-83. In the instant petition, the landlord has claimed the rent from w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Onus was upon the petitioner-tenant to establish that rent had been paid up to date from the above said date. The rent receipts which are placed on record pertains to April 2002 and September 2008. Thus, the petitioner has failed to place on record any evidence that he has paid rent w.e.f. 1.1.1996 up to 14.2.2000 when ejectment application was filed by the respondent-landlady. Moreover, the version put forward by the tenant that he had paid rent to Sh. Ajay Kumar Sehgal cannot be believed. Once, the petitioner has admitted the respondent as his landlord/landlady, there was no occasion of payment of rent to a third person. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to establish that he has paid rent to the landlady w.e.f. 1.1.1996 @ ` 400/- per month. Accordingly, no exception can be taken to the impugned order of eviction passed against him. 10. No other argument was raised. 11. In view thereof, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed.