In order to establish sub-letting, one has to show parting with the exclusive possession and creating interest in the tenancy by the tenant in favor of a third person.

1. The ejectment of the respondent-tenant was sought by the landlord-petitioner, inter -alia, on the grounds of non payment of rent sub-letting, by respondent No.1 to respondents Nos 4 to 7, and ceasing to occupy the shop in dispute by respondent No.1.

2. The respondents denied the relationship, of landlord and tenant and contended that respondent No.7, Balwant Singh was the, owner of the firm M/s Arpra Sauttle Works Jandiala Gunu. He took the premises in dispute from Aroor Chand, Harbans Lal and Pal Dass. He continues to be a partner of respppdnts Nos.4 to 7 and sever parted with the possession of the demised premises. The rent was tendered but was not accepted by the landlord.

3. The Rent Controller ordered the ejectment of the respondents holding that there was relationship of landlord and tenants ; Balwant Singh respondent No.7 was neither the owner nor a partner of respondent No.1 -the tenant firm inducted by the landlord. The tender of rent by respondent No.7 was found to be not valid.

4. The tenant-respondents preferred an appeal which was accepted and the petition for ejectment of the tenants was dismissed. The Appellate, Authority found that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner, and the respondents. It was further found that the shop in dispute was never sub let nor it was taken on lease by respondent. No. l through Shori Lal as averred. The contention of the landlord petitioner that Balwant Singh respondent. No.7 was an employee off respondent No.1 was rejected. The tender of rent was found to be valid.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority in this revision, petition and contends that the finding with respect to issue No.1 to the effect that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents cannot be sustained. It is contended that the petitioner claimed to be the land lord and, a specific issue was framed with respect to the relationship of landlord and tenant inter se the parties. The parties were well aware of the facts they were to prove. The land- lord produced the settlement deed between Pal Dass, Aroor Chand and Harbans Lal, according to Which the Shop in dispute has fallen to the share of petitioner landlord Aroor Chand.

6. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner-landlord has acquired the title of the shop in dispute under the said memorandum of partition and has become owner thereof. In view of this, it cannot be disputed that even if the respondents had taken the shop in dispute on lease from Pal Dass as averred by them; the petitioner being the successor of Pal Dass will be the landlord by operation of law. In the course of arguments, ;it is accepted that the petitioner is the landlord of the shop in dispute,

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the finding with respect to the sub letting of the shop in dispute by M/s. Arora Textile Shuttle Works, Jandlala Guru to respondents Nos.4 to , 7. It is contended that in the written statement, it is no where stated that Balwant Singh was the owner of M/s Arbra Textile Shuttle Works. It has not been proved on record that Balwant Singh was the partner of M/s Arora Textile Shuttle Works, Jandiala Guru. I view of this, there is no evidence on record to prove that Balwant Singh respondent No.7 was a tenant of the petitioner or his predecessor. In ,view, of the admitted fact that a new firm of which Balwant Singh is the proprietor, is running the business in the demised premises, exclusive possession of Balwant Singh is proved who was never a tenant of the petitioner. Consequently, the sub letting of the demised premises by respondent No.1 to Balwant Singh respondent No.7 and the firm constituted by him consisting of respondent Nos.4 to 7 is proved.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents refutes the said submissions and contends that the Appellate Authority after appraisa