The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in cases of subletting, the shift of onus to the tenant to rebut the inference of subletting, and the acknowledgment of the clandestine nature of subletting and the difficulty for the landlord to produce direct evidence.

Mahesh Grover, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against judgments dated 27.1.2G06 and 8.12.2007 passed respectively by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh and the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, whereby the application moved by landlord-respondent Nos.l to 3 under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act,1949 (for short, the Act) for ejectment of the tenant-petitioners from ground-floor of S.C.O.No.19, Sector 26, Chandigarh, (hereinafter described as the demised premises) on the ground of sub-letting was accepted and the appeal of the latter was dismissed.

2. The tenancy in favour of the petitioners was created in the year 1977 at a monthly rent of Rs.3600/- which was subsequently increased to Rs.4000/-.Om Parkash, father of respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and husband of respondent No.2, was the original landlord, who died in the year 1987. In 1983, a notice was served upon the petitioners which is on record as Exhibit RW2/A informing them that the tenancy stood terminated for the reason that the premises had been sub-let to M/s Mohan Meakin Ltd. Subsequent to the death of Om Parkash, Sat Pal, one of the co-owners of the demised premises, modified the terms of the tenancy which is reflected from Exhibit RW4/C in the year 1988 and permitted the petitioners to operate from back portion of the demises premises while M/s Mohan Meakin Ltd. was allowed to use the front portion.

3. In the year 1997, respondent No.l to 3 initiated ejectment proceedings against the petitioners on the ground of subletting.

4. The petitioners resisted the prayer of respondent Nnos.l to 3 by pleading that there could not have been any subletting as the arrangement was made by Sat. Pal, one of the co-owners, who permitted the use of the demised premises by M/s Mohan Meakin Ltd. It was further pleaded that the petitioners have a number of sister concerns including M/s Mohan Meakin Ltd. and in such an eventuality, there was no subletting,

5. The Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority negated the plea of the petitioners and ordered their ejectment, resulting in the filing of the instant petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent Nos.l to 3 failed to discharge the onus of proving the willful parting of possession of the demised premises by the petitioners for valuable consideration, which is an essential ingredient of subletting and, therefore, the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.

7. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent Nos.l to 3 failed to prove by bringing on record any cogent evidence qua the aspect of sub-letting and even if their best case that petitioner-M/s Trade Link Limited has stopped operating from the demised premises and has not transacted any business in the last many years, is taken as correct, then it can, at best, be treated as cessation of occupation which ground was never pleaded and set up, but it does not amount to subletting.

8. It was submitted that petitioner-M/s Trade Link Limited is a puhlic limited company and has many sister concerns and is carrying on its business from the demised premises. It was further submitted that the onus to prove subletting was on the landlords alone and they have failed to discharge the same.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the mala fides on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is evident from the fact that Sat Pal, one of the co-owners, who had negotiated with the petitioners at the time of change of terms of tenancy, was impleaded as proforma respondent in the ejectment application and he was never examined as a witness.

10. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged sub-tenant was a necessary party to be impleaded in the ejectment application and since respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not do so, the proceedings stood vitiated on that ground.

11. Lastly, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the authorit