JUDGMENT

PATHAK, J. :— This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing a tenants revision petition under Section 15 (5), East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, arising out of eviction proceedings.

2. The respondent, as landlord, applied under Section 13 (2) (ii) (a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, for the possession of a shop forming part of the premises No. 6283, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantonment occupied by the appellants. He claimed that the shop had been let out to the first appellant, Gurcharan Singh, but that he had without he written consent of the respondent, sub-let the shop to his father, Gurdayal singh and his brothers, Anoop Singh and Jagjit Singh. The appellants denied that the shop had been sub-let and pleaded that they, along with their father, constituted a joint Hindu family, and that the joint Hindu family was the tenant of the shop. The Rent Controller found in favour of the respondent and passed an order of eviction, which was subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The appellants applied in revision, and the High Court has, by its judgment and other dated 14th December, 1977, dismissed the revision application.

3. The first contention of the appellant is that there is no evidence that the shop was sub-let, and the finding is misconceived in point of law.

4. It is sufficient to point out that the Rent Control Authorities and the High Court have concurrently found that the shop was let out to Gurcharan Singh and not to the joint Hindu family, and that Gurcharan Singh sub-let it in 1967, to a partnership firm consisting of his father and brother. The finding is supported by ample evidence on the record. The material shows that the shop was let out to Gurcharan Singh alone, and the business carried on by him was later taken over by a partnership consisting of his father and brothers. He was no longer proprietor of the business, and merely extended his assistance under a power of attorney enabling him to act for the partnership. The execution of the power of attorney establishes that he was power of attorney establishes that he was not a partner. It appears that Gurcharan Singh individually carried on some other business, but there is no evidence to show that that business was lodged in the shop under consideration. The material before us demonstrates that the shop was occupied exclusively by the partnership firm and that Gurcharan Singh was left with no right to possession therein. The evidence is incompatible with the case, now set up before us, that the partnership was merely a licensee of Gurcharan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants relies on Hira Singh v. Banarsi Dass, (1979) 1 Ren CJ 145 (Delhi). That case, however, was one of a joint tenancy, and it was held that the mere circumstance that one of the co-tenants had ceased living in the premised for some time could not lead to the inference that he had sub-let it to the other co-tenants. The evidence showed that all the co-tenants were carrying on business in partnership, although one of them was not disclosed as a partner.

5. Some reliance was placed on the circumstance that licence for carrying on the business stood in the name of Gurcharan Singh. As the evidence plainly shows, the licence was issued to him when he was carrying on the business, and subsequently, although it continued to stand in his name, it was used by the partnership firm, and no inquiry was ever made by the licensing authority, when renewing it, to determine whether the original holder of the licence was still carrying on the business.

6. We are of opinion that the finding of the High Court and the Rent Control authorities that Gurcharan Singh had sub-let the shop is unassailable.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contends next that the ground of subletting taken under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is not available to the respondent because on the date when the