( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Chief judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad in R. A. No. 157/1975 in which the order of the Rent Controller, Secunderabad in R. C. No. 288/71 was reversed,

( 2 ) THE landlord of the premises bearing No. 3-4-379 situated at tobacco Bazaar, Secunderabad, filed the petition for eviction of the petitioner herein who is the tenant on the grounds of (1) wilful default, (2) subletting, and (3) personal requirement. The Rent Controller rejected the case of the landlord on all the three grounds and dismissed the eviction petition, the landlord preferred appeal against the findings of the Rent Controller with regard to sub-letting and personal requirement. The appellate Authority rejected the landlord s cause with regard to personal requirement, but accepted the case of the landlord with regard to sub-letting and ordered for eviction. In this revision, the finding of the appellate Authorily with regard to sub-letting is assailed.

( 3 ) FOR convenience sake, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the eviction petition. The petitioner-landlord alleges that the 1st respondent tenant had sublet the premises to respondents 2 to 7 to carry on business in the name and style of modi Fabrics Wholesale Depot and the alleged partnership between respondents 1 to 7 is only a bogus affair designed to camouflage the sub-lease of the premises.

( 4 ) THE case of the tenant-1st respondent, on the other hand, is that he entered into a partnership under the partnership deed dated 12-8-1971 with respondents 2 to 7 and the 1st respondent is working partner and the partnership firm is carrying on business under the name and style of modi fabrics Wholesale Depot and the 1st respondent has retained pessession with him, paying the rents to the petitioner-landlord and hence the question of sub-letting does not arise,

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate General, arguing for the tenant, contends that merely because the lessee takes in other partners in his business, it will not be concluded that the lessee has sub-let the building when the lessee did not part with possession and enjoyment of the premises. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in Rangamannar chetty vs. Rangalah. In that case, the 1st respondent Desu Rangaiah, took the premises bearing No. 258 Ward No. 5 Stone Housepet, Nellore belonging to the petitioner on rent ten years ago for his business. Two years back he entered into a partnership with Thadikamalla Venkataseshayya and posa Veeranna for carrying on business of onions. The partnership arrangment was embodied in a deed Ex. B-1. Under Ex B 1 the leasehold interest was not transferred to the partners. That related only to the partaership business to be carried on jointly by the 1st respondant Desu Rangaiah, venkataseshaiah and Posa Veeraana. It regulated only the rights and liabilties in regard to the business. The 1st respondent continued to be in possession of the premises with a liability to pay the rent to the petitioner. The rent originally was a sum of Rs. 10/. It was enchanced from time to time till it reached the present rate of Rs. 60/ -. The landlord filed eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Nellore for evicting the 1st respondent from the premises. The main ground for eviction was that the 1st respondent had sublet the premises to the 2nd respondent s firm. It was alleged that the 1st respondent was carrying on business in Srirangarajpuram after sub-letting the premises to the 2nd respondent who was described in the petition as Tadikamalla venkataseshaiab, Posa Veeranna represented by its two partners. The real Controller dismissed the petition, In appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that there was no sub-letting and on that finding, dismissed the appeal, the petitioner, therefore, filed the writ petition. Before the High Court it was contended that by reason of the partnership, in law, there was sub-let