JUDGMENT

Special Leave is granted.

2. The appellant-tenant was ordered to be evicted for sub-letting the premises. Ex. A. 1 is the lease deed dated April 16, 1968 by which the premises was taken on rent. The case of the landlord was that the tenancy was in favour of Mahesh Kumar as a proprietor of "M / s. Jainco Motors" and he has sub-let the premises to others. The tenant contended to the contrary. He pleaded that the tenancy was in favour of the partnership firm M / s. Jainco Motors of which he was one of the partners and the firm continues even though he has retired from the partnership.

3. The Rent Controller found that there was no sub-letting as the original tenancy was in favour of M/s. Jainco Motors which was partnership firm of brothers. It was also held that the rent was paid by or on behalf of the firm and it was accordingly accepted by the landlord.

4. The appellate authority, however, accepted the case of sub-letting although the original tenancy was found to be in favour of the firm M / s. Jainco Motors. On the recitals of Ex. Al the appellate authority held:

"........that Mahesh Kumar had only acted as an agent of the firm M /s. Jainco Motors Ambala Cantt. The fact that h