JUDGMENT

NATARAJAN, J.:— This appeal by special leave is by a tenant and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Civil Second Appeal No. 59 of 1978 confirming the judgment of the Appellate Court whereby the appellant was held liable to be evicted from the premises leased to him by the respondent on the ground of having parted with the possession of the premises.

2. C. M P. No. 906 of 1979 has been filed by the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 C. P.C. for certain documents being received as additional evidence.

3. In so far as the facts are concerned, there is no controversy whatever. In January 1963, the appellant took on lease from the respondent a building situate in Rasta Ka Gheewalan in the city of Jaipur. In the Deed of Rent executed by the appellant, there was an express provision that he should not sublet the premises to anyone. However, in March 1968, a social club known as the Lokpriya Social Club came to be opened in the premises and the members of the club began using the premises for playing cards, chopar, chess etc. every evening till about midnight or even till I a.m. The functioning of the club in the premises led to the respondent filing a suit against the appellant seeking his eviction on two grounds viz. (1) subletting the premises contrary to the terms of the lease deed and (2) conversion of the user of the premises from residential to non-residential purposes. As it has been concurrently held by the first two courts that the premises had not been leased for residential purposes, no further advertence is called for to the second ground on which the eviction was sought for.

4. As regards the first ground, the appellant did not dispute but on the other hand admitted the factum of the Lokpriya Social Club being opened in the leased premises in March 1968 and the club functioning in the premises since then. He however contended that he had neither sublet for rent nor otherwise parted with the possession of the premises to the club. His case was that he continued to have possession of the premises for doing business in gold jewellery and cloth on commission basis in a small portion of the building but being the founder of the club, he had provided the club a room to have its office and a hall for the club members to assemble and play games such as cards, chess, chopar etc.

5. In the trial of the suit, the respondent examined himself and an Assistant in the office of the Registrar of Companies as witnesses on his side. The appellant examined himself and three other witnesses on his side to substantiate his contentions.

6. The Trial Court held that the respondent had failed to prove that the appellant had sublet the premises to the Lokpriya Social Club for rent and that the evidence only warranted an inference that the appellant had allowed the club to use the premises as a licences and as such the appellant was not liable to be evicted. The Appellate Court, while concurring with the Trial Court that the evidence did not establish any subletting of the premises for rent. nevertheless held that there were adequate materials to hold that the appellant had parted with the possession of the premises in favour of the club and such parting of possession would amount to subletting within the meaning of the Act and as such the appellant was liable to be evicted. Consequently, the Appellate Court passed a decree for eviction against the appellant. The second appeal to the High Court by the appellant did not meet with success and hence he has approached this Court by way of appeal by special leave.

7. Since the first ground on which eviction was sought for was the subletting of the premises to the Lokpriya Social Club, the question whether the appellant was receiving any rent or not from the club had loomed large in the proceedings before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The appellants categoric stand that he was not receiving any rent from the club and his permitting the club to use the premise