The main legal point established is that to prove subletting, exclusive possession by the alleged sub-tenant and the surrender of control by the tenant must be demonstrated.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of CR No. 1933 of 1986 and CR No.2490 of 1986 as they are directed against the common judgment given by Mr. N.S.Saini, Rent Controller, Ferozepur dated 31.1.1985 dismissing the Eviction Application of the respondent-landlady and the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur dated 2.6.1986 in Rent Appeal No,14 of 1985 and Rent Appeal No.16-R of 1985.

2. Bhupinder Kaur, the respondent land-lady filed an application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the petitioner in the Court of Rent Controller, Ferozepur. Initially, the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the, premises by Brij Mohan Lal who was the owner of the demised premises. Bhupinder Kaur, the present landlady purchased the aforesaid premises and hence became the landlady of the petitioners. The eviction was sought on the grounds of nonpayment of rent at the rate of Rs.140/- per month from 1.10.1977 till the filing of the petition on 3.1.1983 and for sub-letting the back portion of his shop by the tenant-Madan Pal to his son, Mohinder Kumar, petitioner No.2. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had sublet the demised premises to petitioner No.2 for running a separate business in the back portion of the shop without the written consent of the landlady. The separate replies were filed by the petitioners denying the claim of the respondent-landlady. The allegation of subletting was specifically denied. It was stated that petitioner No.1 was the actual tenant in possession of the shop which had been taken for the business of cloth merchant styled as Madan Di Hatti and M/s Madan Lal Mohinder Kumar. It was stated that petitioner No.2, Mohinder Kumar as well as his son, Vijay Kumar had only been assisting the tenant in the business. Therefore, the presence of the son in the business premises was merely that of a licensee. He had no independent right either in the business or in the occupation of the demised premises. Following issues were framed by the Rent Controller: -

"1. Whether the respondent No.1 was a tenant on the demised premises on rent Rs.140/- per month under the application? OPA.

2. Whether respondent No.1 has sublet a part of the shop in question to respondent No.2? If so its effect? OPA.

3. Relief."

3. Since the arrears of rent were tendered in Court, the issue No.1 was decided in favour of the respondent-landlady. The main contest between the parties was on issue No.2. The landlady claimed that petitioner No.2 was running a separate and distinct business of a cloth merchant styled as M/s Saree centre without the consent of the landlady. After appreciating the evidence led by the parties, the Rent Controller decided issue No.2 also against the landlady and in favour of the petitioners. No. arguments were addressed on issue No.1 before the Appellate Authority. The findings of the Rent Controller on issue No.2 have been reversed by the Appellate Authority. During the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the respondent-landlady tendered in evidence affidavit. Ex.A-1 containing an admission that petitioner No.2 is the owner of M/s Saree centre, Main Baazar, Ferozepur and that he is paying a sum of Rs.200/- per month to his father as rent. At the time when the affidavit was tendered in evidence, the Rent Controller examined the authenticity of the same and came to the conclusion that there had been interpolations in the affidavit dated 21.2.1983. Consequently, the Rent Controller has held that the deed-writer, Tripatpal Singh has acted in connivance with Tajinder Singh, the husband of the respondent-landlady to defeat the claim of the petitioners. The Rent Controller held that Tajinder Singh and Tripatpal Singh are guilty of serious misconduct. Criminal proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be initiated against both of them. Further a reference has been made to the Registrar-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur for cancellati