JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:—The tenant of one room which is a part of a premises located within the township of Aligarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal before this Court after obtaining special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The respondent landlord asked for his eviction on the ground of the tenant having created a sub-tenancy of the premises sometime in October, 1976, in favour of M/s. Pavan Trading Company, a soap manufacturing concern. The tenant denied the allegation of subletting. The main issue raised in the proceeding was whether the tenant had sublet the accommodation as alleged by the landlord. The SCC Judge started dealing with this issue by saying :

"Under Ss. 12, 15 and 20 of the Act if tenant has allowed a non-family member to occupy the accommodation, he should be deemed to have sublet the accommodation. If it is found that Pavan Trading Co. or if any of its partner is carrying on business in the accommodation, the tenant in fact shall be deemed to have sublet the accommodation. In Delhi 1971 Rent CJ 492 (Abdul Aziz v. Yaqub Khan) it was held by the Court that if any person other than a tenant is found sitting in the shop, the tenant has to lead