The landlord must prove that the tenant has parted with possession of the premises in dispute to establish subletting as a ground for eviction.

D.V.Sehgal, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated June 6, 1987, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Gurgaon, under Section 15(4) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, whereby it upheld the order of the learned Rent Controller, Ballabgarh, dated December 14, 1978, rejecting the application of the landlord-petitioner for ejectment of tenant-respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that he is the owner and the landlord of a shop bearing No. IC/57, situated in Market No. 1, N.I.T. Faridabad, and respondent No. 1 is a tenant under him at a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- besides the house tax. He claimed the eviction of respondent No. 1 on multiple grounds, namely, that respondent No. 1 had not paid rent since August 5, 1975; that he had sublet and transferred the possession of the shop in dispute to Krishan Lal and Dina Nath, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively; and that the petitioner himself required the shop in dispute for his own use and occupation as his younger son was to be settled in business. Respondent No. 1 tendered the arrears of rent within the period prescribed by Section 13(1) of the Act. As a result, the first ground for eviction became non-existent. It was further held by the learned Rent Controller that the shop in dispute being a non-residential building could not be got vacated for the personal use and occupation of the landlord. As a result, this ground also failed. On the ground of sub-letting, the learned Rent Controller found that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 continues to be in occupation of the shop and is carrying on the business of photography. His brothers assist him in this business. He has never parted with the possession of the shop in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed. As already mentioned above the appeal of the petitioner before the learned Appellate Authority also failed and was dismissed vide judgment under revision. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have also gone through the record including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence led before the learned Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner pressed into service the ground of subletting alone. He contended that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the shop in dispute is now in occupation of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, while respondent No. 1 himself is carrying on the business of liquor vend at a shop at Batta Chowk, Faridabad. He placed reliance on the account opening form and the statement of account, Exhibits A.W. 2/1 to A.W. 2/3, whereby Krishan Lal, respondent No. 3 opened the bank account and styled himself as the proprietor of Deep Photo Studio. The address given is market No. 1, IC/57, Faridabad N.I.T. He then brought to my notice the account opening form Exhibit A.W. 3 and the statement of the account accompanying it, which shows that Dina Nath, respondent No. 3 opened a Bank account in the name of Deepak Photo Studio, Market No. 1, Faridabad N.I.T. He then referred to the statements of Brij Mohan and Arjan A.W. 3 and A.W. 4, respectively, who stated that they have been seeing Krishan Lal and Dina Nath working on the shop in dispute and that Sunder Lal had not been working there. They also deposed that Sunder Lal had sublet the demised premises to his brothers, Krishan Lal and Dina Nath. He then invited my attention to the statement of R.K. Pruthi, Upper Division, Clerk, office of the Income-Tax Department, Faridabad. He brought the record of the wine shop belonging to Sunder Lal, respondent No. 1, relating to the years 1974-75 and 1975-76. He stated that the income of Deepak Photo Studio is not included in the I