Sub-letting can be inferred from circumstances, including separate businesses and residences of tenants and alleged sub-tenant, and the improbability of parting with possession without consideration.

V.K.Jhanji, J.

1. This is tenants revision petition directed against the order of the appellate Authority whereby the tenants have been ordered to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the ground of sub-letting.

2. Landlord, Vir Chand (respondent herein) filed a petition Under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban and Restriction Act (in short the Act) against Hakam Rai and Mohinder Pal sons of Ram Gopal seeking their ejectment from the shop in dispute inter-alia on the grounds that the tenants are in arrears of rent; have impaired the value and utility of the premises by making material alterations; have changed the user of the building by selling sweets and tea, and have sub-let the premises to Ramesh Kumar, their brother. The trial Court dismissed the ejectment petition. However, the appeals of the landlord has been allowed by the appellate Authority and in consequence thereof order of ejectment has been passed against the petitioner-tenants on the ground of sub- letting. Appellate Authority on the appreciation of evidence on record has returned the finding that Ramesh Kumar is in exclusive possession of the shop wherein he is selling tea and sweets and the tenants have nothing to do with the shop. Against the order of the appellate Authority the tenants have filed the present revision petition.

3. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate, counsel for the petitioners has contended that in order to prove sub-letting, two facts must necessarily be proved. Firstly, the alleged sub-tenant must be in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises, and secondly, the tenants must have parted with the premises in whole or in part thereof for a valuable consideration. According to Mr. Sarin, these two facts have not been proved in this case.

4. So far as exclusive possession is concerned, appellate Authority has come to the conclusion that Ramesh Kumar is in exclusive possession of the shop. For coming to this finding, the appellate Authority has relied on the oral and documentary evidence on record. In answer to the allegation of the landlord that one Ramesh Kumar, younger brother of the tenants, is carrying on the business of preparing and selling sweets and tea and the tenants have assigned the shop to said Ramesh Kumar, the tenants in their written statement took up the plea that the business of the tenants is Joint Hindu Family business and Ramesh Kumar is one of the coparceners. They also took up the plea that Ramesh Kumar sits at the shop along with his other brothers. Ramesh Kumar, when appeared as A.W.8 admitted in this statement that he and his family, i.e. his wife and two children have a separate ration-card, whereas Hakam Rai is having his own separate ration-card. He further admitted that the ration-card of Hakam Rai is on the address of House No. 1609, Ward No. 4, Gidderbaha, whereas his other brother namely Mohinder Pal is residing in Mohalla Thakar Dass in Ward No. 1 his brothers namely Ramji Dass, Bhim Sain and Joginder Pal reside at Ratia and are separate in residence and mess, and his brother, Sham Lal is residing in Bantabad in Gidderbaha. The statement of Ramesh Kumar has been relied upon by the appellate Authority to come to the conclusion that the brothers are separate in residence and mess and the tenants have failed to prove that there is Joint Hindu Family Business. The statement of Hakam Rai who appeared as RW-1 has also been taken into consideration. In his statement, Hakam Rai admitted that Mohinder Pal is selling Pan - Beedi in a separate Khokha which is situated on one side of the road. Though he stated that his business is joint, but no evidence worth the name has been brought on record that the brothers have been pooling together the income from the business which they are carrying on in separate premises. It has also came on record that Hakam Rai has shifted to Ratia where he has been allotted a Khokha in which he is running has own business. As against this evidence, there is nothing to show tha