The interpretation of material evidence and the presumption of correctness of official records are crucial in determining subletting under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

N.K.Sud, J.

1. This civil revision is directed against the order of Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated 3.4.1997, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner-tenant against the order of her eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 14.12.1995.

2. Kanwal Parkash Kaur, mother of respondent-Paramjit Kaur, being the owner of S.C.F. No. 35, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh, had let out the entire ground floor of the said premises to petitioner-Shanti Devi and Mohinder Kumar (respondent No. 5) vide rent note dated 18.8.1981 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- exclusive of water and electricity consumption charges. On her death, respondent-Paramjit Kaur had stepped into her shoes as landlady. She filed an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , claiming that tenants Shanti Devi and Mohinder Kaur had sublet the main shop portion to Sai Ditta Mal and Sham Lal for valuable consideration without her permission. It was claimed that Sai Ditta Mal and Sham Lal were in exclusive possession of the main portion of the demised premises. It was further alleged that the remaining small portion consisting of show window had been sublet to Ramesh Kumar for valuable consideration without the written consent of the landlady. Ramesh Kumar had separate ingress to and egress from the said show window. It was also claimed that tenants, Shanti Devi and Mohinder Kumar, had nothing to do with the demised premises.

3. Neither the co-tenant Mohinder Kumar nor the alleged sub-tenants Sai Ditta Mal, Sham Lal or Ramesh Kumar contested the eviction petition and were proceeded against ex-parte. Only the petitioner came forward and contested the petition. She claimed that the co-tenant Mohinder Kumar had left on his own and she was in possession of the premises and was carrying on the business in partnership with some other person in the name of M/s Sai Confectioners. She denied the allegation of subletting and reiterated that the demised premises were in her exclusive possession. The alleged sub-tenant Sham Lal appeared as RW3 and stated that he along with Pardeep Kumar had entered into a partnership with petitioner-Shanti Devi and placed on record a photo copy of the partnership deed dated 5.4.1988 (Exh.R2) in support of his claim. He also placed on record copy of partnership deed dated 1.9.1981 (Exh.RW3/l) and copy of the dissolution deed dated 5.4.1988 (Exh.RW3/2). He also pointed out that prior to his partnership, Late Sai Ditta Mal, father of Shanti Devi, was a partner with Shanti Devi in the previous partnership. He stated that as per the terms of the partnership, the tenancy had always remained the property of Shanti Devi and he had no connection with the tenancy rights. He also deposed that Ramesh Kumar had never remained in possession of any part of the premises in dispute nor had done any job in the said premises. Ramesh Kumar, who appeared as RW-1, denied that he had ever done any job in the demised premises or had any concern with the same. He stated that he was an employee in the Government Press, UT, Chandigarh, and had never done the job of selling cigarettes, etc. He denied being a sub-lessee in the demised premises.

4. The landlady, on the other hand, maintained that the partnership deed dated 5.4.1988 (Exh.R3/2) showed that Shanti Devi was merely a sleeping partner and hence she was no more in possession of the demised shop and had sublet the same in favour of the remaining partners who were in exclusive control and possession of the same.

5. On the basis of partnership deed and the balance-sheet and alleged accounts produced by the petitioner-tenant, the Rent Controller accepted the claim of the tenant that there was no subletting of the main portion of the demised premises in favour of Sai Ditta Mal and Sham Lal. It was held that no adverse inference could be drawn from the fact that Shanti Devi was merely a sleeping partner. Reference was made to the recital in the partnership deed wh