The main legal point established is that in cases of sub-letting, the burden of proof lies with the tenant to establish the existence of a genuine partnership, and the mere production of a partnership deed may not be sufficient evidence.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for the

respondent.

2. The appellant is aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below recorded in the Judgment s of the trial Court and appellate Court dated 15th Oct., 2001 and 9th May, 2003.

3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for eviction on 13th Sept., 1997 against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff expired and his legal representatives were taken on record, but subsequently, except one legal representative Bhuramal rest of the legal representatives of said Gyan Chand got their names deleted and, therefore, only one of the sons of the original plaintiff Bhuramal remained as party plaintiff .

4. The suit for eviction was filed on the ground of default, sub-letting and creating nuisance in the premises by the defendant tenant. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court held that the defendant has committed default in payment of rent and further held that the defendant No. 1 sub-letted the suit premises. However, the suit of the plaintiff for eviction of the tenant on the ground of creating nuisance was dismissed. Therefore, the decree for eviction against the appellant is on the ground of sub-letting of the suit premises.

5. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant took the premises on rent is not in dispute. He entered into partnership with one Sushil Kumar because of increasing of business of the appellant. The plaintiff also submitted that he is doing the business of dry-cleaning and is not causing any nuisance because by use of petrol no smell is coming out. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant produced on record the partnership deed Ex. 2 in support of their case of partnership of appellant with Sushil Kumar. After this partnership with Sushil Kumar, the defendant tenant took partners Shankarlal and Moolchand for which partnership deed dated 3rd May, 1991 was executed between the defendant Shankar Lal and Moolchand. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, taking, someone in partnership in the business cannot be termed as sub-letting of the shop to other. It is also submitted that in view of the documentary evidence, namely, the partnership deed placed on record by the defendant, it is clear that the defendant only admitted new partners in his business. Learned Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the first appellate Court under wrong assumption of law observed that the cases, which were cited were relating to the companies only and they cannot be applied to the cases of the partnership for the purpose of deciding whether the original tenant has sub-letted the shop or not. According to learned Counsel for the appellant even the plaintiff himself did not appear in the witness box, but adverse inference was drawn against the defendant only on his not appearing in the witness box.

6. I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the facts of the case. The facts came on record are that the shop was let out originally to the defendant Vinay Kumar as back as in the year 1977. He started his business of dry cleaning. His case was that because of increase in his business he took Sushil Kumar as partner. The evidence which has come on record and is not disputed, discloses that the said business was closed and new business in the name of Sarswati Radio and Watch Service was started in the premises. Thereafter, the business was changed by running business of liquor in the shop. The partnership deed produced on behalf of the defendant contains a recital that the defendant himself shall maintain the accounts and will run the business. Despite this fact, the defendant did not appear in witness box to say so on oath. However, witnesses were produced for defendant in which one of the witnesses is Shankar Lal, power of attorney holder of the defendant in whose favour, the po