' Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the decision of the learned Rent Controller, dated 5-4-2000 which has been upheld in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment, dated 15-6-2000. Issue No,1 had been framed by the learned trial Court in the following terms:- "Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?" OPA
2. Evidence has been led by both parties. Both Courts below have considered the same and have come to the conclusion that the applicants/petitioners have failed to discharge the onus placed on them in respect of Issue No, 1 .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly emphasized the fact that the respondent Abdul Aziz .Has not been able to establish that he is owner of the disputed property. This question, as noted by the learned Rent Controller in his order on an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C., filed by the respondent, is not relevant for the purpose of disposing of Issue No, 1 . The petitioners have to stand on their feet and were required to discharge the onus of proof placed on them. Both Courts below have concurrently held that they have failed to discharge this onus. No sufficient ground has been made out to interfere in the said factual findings, while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. In this view of the matter, this petition is without merit and is dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.