C.K. Thakker, C.J.—The present Civil Revision is filed by the petitioner-landlady against the judgment and order passed by Rent Controller (I), Sirmaur District at Nahan on April 29, 1996 in Rent Petition No. 18/2 of 1992 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan on August 18, 1997 in Rent Appeal No. 4-N of 1996.

2. A Rent Petition was filed by the petitioner-landlady against the respondent-tenant in the Court of Rent Controller (I), Sirmaur District at Nahan under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter called the Act). The case of the petitioner was that she was the owner of a non-residential shop bearing Municipal No. 3528, situated at Ward No. 13 of Nahan town, which was let out to the tenant in September, 1985 for a monthly rent of Rs. 550. The respondent was running a dairy products business in the suit shop. He was, however, habitual defaulter in payment of rent. He was in arrears of rent since April, 1990. Even at earlier occasion, he paid rent only after an order of eviction was passed by Court against him. According to the petitioner the respondent had not paid rent and he was, therefore, liable to be evicted. Moreover, without the prior permission of the landlady, the respondent-tenant had sub-let the suit shop by inducting his brother-in-law Harbans Singh, as a sub-tenant. On that ground also, he was liable to eviction. A prayer was, therefore, made by the petitioner to the Rent Controller to pass an order of ejectment against the respondent by awarding possession of the suit shop to her.

3. The respondent contested the petition, inter alia, contending that the petitioner was not entitled to possession of the suit shop. Though the respondent was ready and willing to pay rent and also made an offer to pay rent, the petitioner refused to accept it. The respondent was, therefore, not liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent. Regarding sub-letting, the respondent contended that he never left Nahan town nor did he part with exclusive possession in favour of Harbans Singh. He stated that Harbans Singh was none else than his brother-in-law, who was in good terms with him and was carrying on his independent business of carriage and sale of milk and suit shop was never sub-let to him. Even on that allegation, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to possession.

4. It may be stated that during the pendency of proceedings, arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 11,000 alongwith interest had already been deposited in the Court and the ground of arrears of rent, thus, did not survive. The parties were at issue on sub-letting alone.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed one issue, namely, "whether the respondent has sub-let the premises in question to one Harbans Singh? If so to what relief the petitioner was entitled?" After considering the evidence on record, the Rent Controller held that it was not proved by the petitioner that the respondent had parted with exclusive possession in favour of Harbans Singh, thereby creating sub-tenancy in favour of the latter. Since sub-letting was not proved, the petitioner-landlady was not entitled to possession and the respondent was not liable to be evicted. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan. The appellate authority, once again, considered the evidence on record and in paragraph 15, a finding of fact was recorded that the petitioner was not able to establish that the respondent had parted with exclusive possession of the suit shop to Harbans Singh, and hence, it was not a case of sub-letting.

7. The said order passed by the appellate authority is challenged in the present revision. The petition was admitted on July 10, 1998. Today, it is called out for final hearing.

8. I have heard Shri K.D. Sood, learned Counse