M.S.Liberhan, J.

1. The tenant has impugned the order dated Sept. 7, 1988, for ejectment by the Appellate Authority.

The factual matrix relevant for the decision of this revision petition is :-

2. The ejectment of the petitioners was sought by the respondents, inter alia, on the grounds of subletting by Kewal Chand to Nasib, structurally changing the demised premises resulting in material impairment of its value and utility and the premises becoming unfit for human habitation.

3. The petitioners refuted the grounds of ejectment. The premises tenanted were known as Tabela, taken for tethering cattle by Kewal Chand. Nasib was an employee of Kewal Chand who had been employed for the last 31 years to look after the cattle as well as other work of Kewal Chand and his family. The occupation of Nasib was admitted but his possession as sub-tenant was denied. Alteration, impairment in value and utility and damage to the building were refuted. The building was stated to be fit for human habitation.

4. The Rent Controller, on appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no subletting as there was no transfer of exclusive possession nor creation of interest of Nasib in the premises was proved; the building was fit for human habitation; no changes had been made nor any impairment in its value and utility had taken place. Nasib was found to be the servant of Kewal Chand. Resultantly, ejectment was declined.

5. On appeal, the appellate Court reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and held, that the landlord was able to prove transfer of exclusive possession by Kewal Chand to Nasib if not the subletting; and since the tenant failed to prove the nature of possession of Nasib as servant, it was inferred that the demised premises were sublet to Nasib. It was held that the southern wall was reconstructed by the tenant at the cost of one Des Raj neighbourer and, therefore, it was presumed that some area must have been included towards the premises of Des Raj and since the impairment in value and utility on account of the change was to be seen from the view point of the landlord; hence the value on the report of the Expert produced by the landlord and the reasons recorded therein, the building was held to be unfit for human habitation. In view of the findings recorded by the lower appellate Court, an order of ejectment was passed.

6. The counsel for the petitioners challenged the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority inter alia, contending, these were neither legal nor based on the pleadings and the evidence on the record. The propriety of the inferences drawn by the Appellate Court was challenged. It was urged that the lower Appellate Court lost sight of the peculiarity of the facts in this case and while appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence failed to give due weightage to the findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court after appreciation of observing the demeanour of the witnesses. The reasoning and inferences drawn by the trial Court were ignored. The nature of evidence, the conduct of witnesses and the essence of their statements in the background of pleadings was not taken note of in its true prospective. The findings were in no way congruent either with the requirement of law/rules or the principles established by various pronouncements of the Supreme Court and this Court. The ingredients envisaged by the statute for the grounds for ejectment were not taken note of. The trial Courts reasoning had not been specifically dealt with before reversing its findings. The object of the Rent Act being a social enactment to protect the interest of the tenants was lost sight of while appreciating the evidence.

7. In the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioners contended that in order to prove the subletting as the ground for ejectment, it was for the landlord to establish the subletting, i.e. that the tenant has either in part or in whole parted with the