The grant of exclusive possession of a part of the premises to a third person raises a presumption of parting with possession. The onus is on the tenant to rebut this presumption by showing that the legal possession of the entire premises continues with the tenant.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal Delhi, dated the 22nd October, 1964. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the appellant tenant had parted with possession of a. part of the premises in favour of Anand Sarup, his sister s husband and ordered his ejectment.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant under rent note Exhibit A. 2 rented the premises in dispute being No. D-4, Kirti Nagar, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi, from Anand Sarup Landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 300. 00 The landlord filed a petition for ejectment inter alia on the ground that the tenant had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of a part of the premises in favour of Anand Sarup his sister s husband and Surinder Lal Chaudhri, his younger brother, without the consent of the landlord. In the written statement filed by the tenant it was stated that there was no unauthorised occupant in the premises in dispute and Surinder Lal Chaudhri, his brother, and Anand Sarup his brother-in-law, had been living there since the commencement of the tenancy. On these pleadings evidence was led by the parties. Anand Sarup the brother-in-law of the tenant appeared as R. W. 1. and stated that he was practising as an Advocate in Jullundur till 6/6/1960 and shifted to Delhi where he started practice on 7th June, 1960. His wife had been staying with the tenant since 20th April ,1960. He further stated that the entire rent was being paid by the tenant and he did not pay anything. He however, admitted that for convenience he had kept one room with him which he and his family used as a separate bedroom. He further stated that the drawing room was being used jointly with the tenant and his younger brother. Shrimati Sushil Kumari, sister of the tenant and wife of Anand Sarup (R. W. 1.) also appeared as R. W. 2 and deposed that neither she nor her husband was paying any rent to the tenant. She denied that the tenant had sublet any part of the premises to them but admitted that one bedroom was being used exclusively for her family. She further stated that she was having a joint mess withher brother and though she was not paying any fixed amount to him she did spend about Rs. 300. 00 to Rs. 400. 00 per mensem on various consumable items purchased for the house. More or less to the same effect is of Surinder Lal Chaudhari (R. W. 3), the younger brother of the tenant. He said that except the bedrooms they were using the entire property jointly. The Landlord appearing as his own witness as A. W. I, inter alia stated that Anand sarup, brother-in-law of the tenant, was in exclusive possession of a particular part of the house and had his separate mess. The evidence of the landlord shows that his allegation about sub-letting or parting with the possession was based more on his inference from the fact that persons other than the tenant were living in the house than from any personal knowledge. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, came to the conclusion that Surinder Lal Chaudhari, the younger brother of the appellant-tenant, was a member of the family and, therefore, his living with the tenant did not constitute any sub-letting or parting with the possession. Regarding Anand Sarup, it was held that there was subletting or parting with possession of a part of the premises in his favour. The Tribunal dealt with the matter thus :-

"the married sister of the appellant (G. D. Chaudhari), her four children and her husband Anand Sarup R. W. 1. are not the members of the family of the appellant. He cannot be treated to-be living there as a guest. Barring the bald statements of the appellant and his other witnesses there is no proof to show that they are joint in mess and that the expenses are borne by the appellant alone, I cannot persuade myself to believe that the appellant is maintaining his brother-in-