In order to prove sub-letting or parting with possession of the premises, the landlord must establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the tenant and the sub-tenant, the transfer of an interest in the estate, the demand of rent, and the right to possession against the sub-tenant. Mere occupation is not sufficient to infer sub-tenancy or parting with possession.

( 1 ) FACTS giving rise to this second appeal are that an eviction petition was filed with respect to the premises comprising the entire the first floor, second floor along with stairs of premises No. 5730 (old) and 5011 (new) Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi on the ground that the tenant appellant has sub let, assigned or parted with the possession of the demised premises to R. P. Hosiery, T. R. Hosiery and Lovely Hosiery without the written consent of the landlord somewhere in 1966. The grounds of substantial damage and misuse were also pleaded but these grounds were not pressed.

( 2 ) THE eviction petition was contested by the appellant tenant pleading that no valid notice of termination of tenancy has been served and as such the eviction petition was not maintainable. On merits, he pleaded that the premises were not sub let, assigned or parted with possession by him to any one. There are no sub tenants in the premises in question.

( 3 ) ON the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the landlord and relying upon the descision of this Court in Abdul Aziz v. Mohd. Yahub, 1971 DLT 192 both the Courts of the Addl. Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal came to a finding that the appellant has sub let the demised premises after 1952 without the consent of the landlord and as such the eviction order under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED, the appellant has filed this second appeal.

( 5 ) CLAUSE (b) to proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, uses there expression, namely, "sub letting", "assigning" and "parting with possession" of the whole or part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. These three expressions deal with different concepts and apply to different circumstances. In sub letting. there should exist the relationship of landlord and tenant as between the tenant and his sub tenant and the instance of letting or the tenancy must be found namely the transfer of an interst in the estate, demand of rent and the right to possession against the tenant in respaect of the premises sub-let. In assignment the tenant has to divest himself of all the rights that he has as a tenant. The expression parting with possession undoubtedly postulates parting with legal possession. Parting with possession means giving possession to persons other than those to whom possession has been assigned by the lease and the parting with possession must have been by the tenant. The mere user by other person is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself or in other words, there must be vesting of the possession by the tenant in another person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession. The divestment or abandonment of right to possession is necessary in order to invoke the cluase of parting with possession.

( 6 ) THIS is the law as has been laid down by this Court in Hazari Lal v. Giani Rani, 1972 R. C. R. 74 and Vishwa Nath v. Chaman Lal, AIR 1975 Delhi 117 approved by the Supreme Court in (1989) 3 S. C. C. 56.

( 7 ) THE Court below mainly relied upon the statement of S. L. Aggarwal clerk of the Labour Department AWI,shris. K. Srivastava official of the Sales tax Department, AW 5, Balwant Singh, official from the Income tax Department AW6, Babu Ram clerk of Punjab National Bank AW7, Bishamber Nath clerk from State Bank of India AW 8, Shri Harish Chander Photograper AW 9 and Sumer Chand Gupta AW 4 and came to the conclusion that the three firms P. R. Hosiery, T. R. Hosiery and Lovely Hosiery had been working at certain time from the demised premises. According to the Courts below it is very difficult for any landlord to procure any direct evidence of sub letting. The landlord has to depend on circumstantial evidence in order to show that his tenant has sub let the premises to the strangers. Relying upon the decision of this Co