JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sarkar, J.

1. This is an appeal out of a proceeding started by a landlord against his tenant for ejectment under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The ejectment was sought on a number of grounds but the only one with which we are concerned in this appeal is whether the tenant had sublet the premises without the written consent of landlord. The tenant denied that there had been any subletting and that contention was accepted by the Courts below. Hence this appeal by the landlord.

2. It appears that the premises in dispute, a shop, was let out originally to a firm of the name of Chuni Lal, Gherulal. The firm consisted of three partners, namely, Chunilal, Gherulal and Meghraj. The business of this partnership was closed sometime before November 1955 and thereafter the shop was used by a new firm of the name of Meghraj Bansidhar of which the partners were Meghraj of the firm of Chunilal, Gherulal, and Bansidhar.

3. It appears that two contentions were raised in the High Court both of which were rejected. The first was that the possession of the premises by the new firm proved sub-letting. The contention appears to have been that the old firm and the new firm