The central legal point established in the judgment is that subletting cannot be presumed solely from the presence of another person in the demised premises. The court emphasized the requirement of proving exclusive possession and control by the alleged subtenant, as well as the burden of proof on the landlord to establish subletting under the Act.

N.K.Sud, J.

1. This civil revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot dated 18.2.1997 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the order of their eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Faridkot dated 4.6.1996.

2. Sat Pal being the owner of disputed shop situated at Railway Road, Jaitu filed the application for eviction of the petitioners on the grounds : (i) that the tenant was in arrears of rent from 1.1.1980 to 31.12.1990 and had not paid the house-tax till the date of filing of the petition and (ii) that the tenant Sham Sunder had sublet the demised premises to Vinod Kumar without his consent. It was claimed that Vinod Kumar was in exclusive possession of the shop as Sham Sunder had shifted from Jaitu.

3. The application was contested by the petitioners. It was pleaded that M/s Aggarwal Book Depot was the tenant since long and both Sham Sunder and Vinod Kumar are the partners in the said concern. In the alternative, it was pleaded that even if it were to be assumed that the shop had been let out to Sham Sunder and not to Aggarwal Book Depot, even then there was no case of subletting as Sham Sunder was also a partner in Aggarwal Book Depot along with Vinod Kumar and thus continues to be in possession and control of the demised premises. The rent and the house tax, as claimed by the landlord, was duly tendered in the Court which was accepted.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether Aggarwal Book Depot is tenant in respect of the shop in dispute under the applicant? OPR 2. Whether respondent No. 1 has sublet the demised premises to respondent No. 2. If so, its effect? OPA 3. Relief.

Both issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the landlord Sat Pal and the application for eviction was accepted.

5 Aggrieved by the said order, petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which has been dismissed vide the impugned order.

6. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the findings recorded by both the Authorities below are totally perverse and against the evidence on record. He pointed out that the petitioners were inducted as tenants not by Sat Pal, but by Bodh Raj who, along with one Moti Ram, was the owner of the shop in dispute. The present landlord Sat Pal had purchased this shop from Moti Ram son of Bodh Raj on 3.11.1969. He further pointed out that in the application for ejectment, it has been stated that the shop had been let out to Sham Sunder, who had further sublet it to Vinod Kumar. This allegation was denied in the written statement and it was claimed that the shop had been let out to Aggarwal Book Depot in which both Sham Sunder and Vinod Kumar were partners. Learned counsel contended that the landlord had not controverted the contents of the written statement as no replication to the same was filed and as such the same are deemed to have been accepted by the landlord. He also pointed out that landlord Sat Pal was examined as AW-3 and even he did not controvert the averment of the petitioner in the written statement that the shop had also been let out to Vinod Kumar. Even Amarjit Singh, examined as AW-4, did not specifically controvert this position. He further contended that even if it were to be accepted that the shop in question had been originally let out to Sham Sunder alone, even then no case for subletting is made out as Vinod Kumar and Sham Sunder are both partner in Aggarwal Book Deptts. Mr. Sarin then referred to the copies of the orders Annexures A-l and A-2 which had been allowed to be produced as additional evidence. According to him, Annexure A-l is an order under Section 185(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Income Tax Officer which shows that as per instrument of partnership dated 4.7.1970, firm Aggarwal Book Depot was constituted by Sham Sunder and Vinod Kumar. Similarly, he submitted that Annexure A-2 is the assessment order of the firm for the assessm