Once transfer of possession of the lease-hold property is proved, the onus shifts upon the tenant to make out that transfer of possession cannot be attributed to subletting or assigning, as the tenant, even after transfer of possession, retained the right to claim the possession.

S.N. Modi, J.-This is a second appeal by the defendant-tenants against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gangapur City, dated August 9, 1974, affirming the decree for eviction passed in favour of the plaintiff-landlord by the Munsiff , Bharatpur, on the ground of sub-letting.

2. The plaintiff-landlord sought eviction of the defendants from the shop situated at Bharatpur and frilly described in paragraph No. 1 of the plaint, on the ground of default in payment of rent as also on the ground that the defendants had deteriorated the value of the shop by non-user for a period of more than two years. Subsequently, one more ground for eviction was added by amendment of the plaint. It was alleged in the amended plaint, that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant-appellants sub-let the shop in dispute some time in the month of February, 1971 to Pannalal Bharti, who carried on business at the suit shop under the name and style of Bharatpur Tent House. The defendants contested the suit and denied all material facts. They denied that the suit shop was sub-let to Pannalal Bharti. On the contrary, they asserted that they themselves were carrying on business in the suit shop.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed by the trial Court.

4. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that from proved facts, it could safely be inferred that the appellant had sub-let the suit shop to Pannalal Bharti without the consent of the landlord. The trial Court, on the aforesaid finding of sub-letting, decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendants, the learned District Judge affirmed the finding of sub-letting arrived at by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The defendant-tenants have now come up in second appeal before this Court.

5. Mr. N.M. Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the appellants, challenges the correctness of the finding of sub-letting arrived at by the Courts below. According to the learned Counsel, there is no evidence on the record to prove that the suit shop was sub-let to Pannalal Bharti or that Pannalal Bharti was ever seen sitting on the shop and carrying on tent business in the name and style of Bharatpur Tent House. It is further contended that from the defendants’ evidence, which has not at all been considered by the lower appellate Court, it is proved that the tent business carried on in the suit shop belongs to the defendants themselves. It is contended, that, in the circumstances of the case, no inference of sub-letting arises in the present case. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord that the inference of sub-letting drawn by the Courts below is wholly justified from the evidence on the record and this Court, sitting in second appeal, cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of the Courts below.

6. Admittedly, the Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs suit on the ground mentioned in Section 13

(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. Section 13 (1) (a) reads as under:-

“13. Eviction of tenants.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent, therefore, to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied-

(a). (b). (c). (d). (e). that the tenant has assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of , the whole or any part

of the premises without the permission of the landlord; or It is well settled that initially the onus of proving that the tenant has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with possession of the lease-hold, lies on the landlord, and not on the tenant. In the present case, there is no direct evidence to establish that the defendants sub-let, assigned or parted with possession of the suit premises in favou