Subletting can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that the defendant had left the premises and the other person had been living there since 1943.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, at the instance of defendant/appellants, is directed against the decision dated August 23, 1975, made in Title Appeal No. 816 of 1974, by the learned Additional District Judge, 13th Court, Alipore, affirming thereby the decision dated July 23, 1974, made in Title Suit No. 390 of 1967, by the learned Munsif, 2nd Additional Court, Alipore. Those determinations have been made after remand.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff, initially brought Title Suit No. 277 of 1966 in the Court of the learned Munsif, 4th Court, Alipore, contending that defendant No. 1, Anath Chakravartty, who was a tenant in respect of the Southern portion of premises No. 74, Harish Chatterjee Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises), had sublet and/or transferred and/or assigned the tenancy, without his knowledge and consent to defendant No. 2, Rajendra Nath Chakravartti. That apart, it was alleged that the said defendant No. 1 was guilty of acts contrary to clauses (m), (o) or (p) of Section 108 of the Transfers of Property Act and furthermore, he has caused damages to the said premises. The suit was alleged to have been filed after duly determining the tenancy, on service of necessary notice and on the failure and refusal of the said defendant No. 1 to vacate the premises even in spite of such service.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit by filing a joint written statement wherein it was contended, inter alia, amongst others that they were joint tenants of the said premises, although the tenancy was in the name of defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 1 had not sublet the said premises or any part or portion thereof to the defendant No. 2, the said defendant No. 1 was not a defaulter as alleged and he has not done any act contrary to clauses (m), (o) or (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings as aforesaid the following issues were framed for determination:-1. IS the defendant No. 1 a defaulter in payment of rent? 2. Has the defendant No. 1 sub-let and/or transferred and/or assigned the tenancy without the plaintiff's knowledge and consent to defendant No. 2? 3. Has the defendant No. 1 done acts contrary to the provisions of clause (m), (o) or (p) of Section 108 T. P. Act. ? 4. Has any notice to quit been served on the defendant No. 1, if so, is the same legal, valid and sufficient?5. To what relief or reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

( 5 ) THE learned Munsif found the story of subletting by defendant No. 1 to the defendant No. 2 to be correct. It was also found by him that the defendant No. 1 was really a defaulter in payment of rent since June, 1965 and that by refusing the plaintiff to inspect the said premises, he had acted in violation of or contrary to the provisions of Section 108 (m) of the Transfer of Property Act. But the allegation of damages as alleged to have been caused by the defendant No. 1, was not accepted. The suit was decreed on other grounds and on appeal (Title Appeal No. 1438 of 1969) by the defendants, those determinations were affirmed and accordingly the appeal was dismissed on March 6, 1970.

( 6 ) FROM such determination, there was a further appeal to this Court (S. A. 1218 of 1970), which was heard and disposed of by M. M. Dutt, J. on May 31, 1973. It has been observed and found by this Court that the defendant No. 1 was not a defaulter and he has not acted or committed any act contrary to the provisions of clauses (m), (o) or (p) of the Transfer of Property Act. Thus Issue Nos. 1 and 3 as aforesaid, were decided in favour of the defendants. But the case was remanded to the learned Munsif for disposal of the suit only on Issue No. 2 and that too after recasting the same in the following manner and form: - ?has the defendant No. 1 sublet and/or transferred and/or assigned the tenancy without plaintiff's knowledge and consent to defendant No. 2? If so, when? and it was further directed that in case the said issue is decided and found in favo