JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, J.:—On January 30, 1963 respondent 1 gave a shop on rent to respondent 2, Sat Parkash, for a period of eleven months commencing on February 1, 1963. The rent not executed by respondent 2 in favour of respondent 1 reads as follows:-

"I, Sat Parkash son of Amritsaria Mal Aggarwal of Samrala, am the tenant. Whereas a shop known as Karkhana Pucca bounded as follows ... and situated at Samrala is owned by Shri Dhian Singh.... Now, therefore, I have taken the said shop for a period of 11 months from 1-2-1963 to 31-12-1963 at a rent of Rs. 500/- per annum. The agreement is that rent for a year has been paid in advance against a receipt. I shall not let it out further to anybody and if I do, I shall be liable to ejectment. If the owner needs (the shop) for himself any time, I shall vacate (it) on a six months notice without demur. Hence I have executed this rent note on the 30th of January, 1963.

Sd. Sat Parkash

Tenant."

A partnership firm called M/s. Sat Parkash Single and Brothers of which respondent 2 and three of his brothers were partners occupied the shop, evidently on the authority of the rent note, and continued its business in the shop even after the expiry of the period of the rent note. On March 31, 1968 respondent 2 retired from the firm under a deed of dissolution and two other brothers of his joined the re-constituted partnership. This firm also did its business in the same premises.

2. In 1969 respondent 1 filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, III of 1949, for possession of the shop from respondent 2 and the partners of the firm who are appellants before us on the ground, in so far as relevant, that respondent 2 who, under the rent note, was the tenant of the shop in his personal capacity had unlawfully sublet the shop of the firm.

3. That application was contested by the appellants on the ground, mainly, that the shop was taken on rent by respondent 2 not in his personal capacity but in his capacity as a partner of the firm of M/s. Sat Parkash Single and Brothers and that therefore there was no subletting in favour of the firm or its partners. The Rent Controller, Samrala, accepted this contention and dismissed the application. In appeal the learned District Judge, Ludhiana, reversed the aforesaid finding and held that the shop was let out to respondent 2 in his personal capacity and that after his retirement from the firm, the partners were in possession of the shop as his sub-tenants. Consistently with this finding, the learned District Judge allowed the application and passed an order of eviction against the appellants.

4. The appellants then filed a Revision Petition under Section 15 (5) of the East Punjab Rent Act in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. That revision petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court who concurred in the finding recorded by the District Court on the question of sub-letting. The High Court held that the rent not was "a clincher" in favour of respondent 1, that respondent 2 was the sole tenant under that rent note, that on and after the retirement of respondent 3 from the partnership firm the shop must be deemed to have continued in the possession of the surviving partners and the others who joined the firm as sub-tenants of respondent 2 and that therefore respondent 1 was entitled to a decree for eviction of the appellants. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court.

5. Both the District Court and the High Court have taken the view that in view of the clear terms of the rent not executed by respondent 2 in favour of respondent 1, appellants could not be allowed to lead evidence to prove that the real tenant was different from the ostensible tenant. So stated, the proposition is open to exception and Mr. Garg, who appears on behalf of the appellants, is right in his contention that the proposition is stated too widely.

6. Section 91 of the Evidence Act provid