( 1 ) THE plaintiffs who are the landlords filed against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the present suit for recovering possession of the suit premises which consist of a shop situate at Kodinar in the District of Amreli. The plaintiffs alleged against the defendants three grounds of eviction. The first ground was that they require the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for their occupation. Secondly they alleged that the defendant No. 1 was in arrears of rent for more than six months. Thirdly they alleged that the defendant No. 1 their tenant had unlawfully sub-let the suit premises to the defendant No. 2.

( 2 ) THE learned Trial Judge negatived all the grounds of eviction alleged by the plaintiffs against the defendants and dismissed the suit on merits.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge negatived two of the three grounds of eviction alleged by the plaintiffs but upheld the plaintiffs contention that the defendant No. 1 had unlawfully sub-let the Suit premises to the defendant No. 2. In that view of the matter the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and passed in favour of the plaintiffs decree for possession.

( 4 ) IT is that decree for possession which is called in question by the defendants in this Civil Revision Application.

( 5 ) MR. Vakharia who appears for the defendants has contended that 8 even on the facts found by the learned District Judge there cannot be any unlawful sub-letting. Mr. Patel who appears for the plaintiffs has not challenged the findings recorded by the learned District Judge on the question of the plaintiffs reasonable and bona fide requirement of the. suit premises and on the question of the defendant No. 1 being in arrears of rent for more than six months. He has not assailed those findings for the purpose of supporting the decree under challenge.

( 6 ) THE defendant No. 1 Manchharam Shobraj is admittedly the tenant. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant No. 3 M/s Manchharam Shobraj and Co. consisting of three partners including the defendant No. 1 was the sub-tenant. The learned District Judge has dealt with this aspect of the case in paragraphs 12 and 13 of his judgment. He has rightly stated in his judgment that if a tenant takes a partner in the firm it does not amount to unlawful sub-letting. Having stated this principle correctly It appears to me that he has erred in its application to the facts of the instant case. He has further stated in his judgment that if a tenant walks out leaving the premises to a stranger who carries on his business or if a tenant walks out allowing a third party to carry on his business under a sham or camouflage partnership with the tenant or if the tenant takes a certain person as a partner and gives him exclusive possession of a part of the premises or if a tenant gives exclusive possession of the premises to a third party under an agreement of conducting the business which business is started by the third party and the tenant has nothing to do with the profit or loss of the business he can be said to have sub-let the suit premises. In support of the propositions quoted above though the learned District Judge has stated that they are all well-settled he has neither given reasons to justify them nor has he cited any decisions to support them. However it is true that if a tenant walks out of the suit premises and leaves the suit premises to a stranger who carries on his own business it may lead to an inference that the tenant has sub-let his premises to a sub-tenant. That is so because it is a stranger who carries on his own business which shows that the tenant who has left the premises to him is no longer interested in those premises. Similarly if a tenant walks out of the premises in his possession and allows a third party to carry on his own business under a sham or camouflage partnership with the tenant it may amount to an act of unlawful subletting by the tenant if the camouflage partner