The burden of proof is on the landlord to prove parting with possession, and the burden of proof is on the tenant to prove an arrangement negativing the passing of complete control to the sub-tenant.

D.K.Mahajan, J.

1. This petition for revision is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority reversing on appeal the decision of the Rent Controller rejecting the application of the tenant.

2. The landlady filed the present petition for eviction on the 1st March, 1965 on the allegation that respondent No. 1, Dr. Ram Sarup took the shop in dispute consisting of three rooms, shown read in the plan attached to the application, on a rent of Rs. 24/- P.M. with effect form 1st May, 1957 and executed a rent note in favour of the petitioner the same day. The eviction was claimed on two grounds, (1) that respondent No. 1 (the tenant) had neither paid nor rendered any account to the petitioner since 1st of October, 1964; and (2) that respondent No. 1 had joined some service at Leicester Shire in England for the last 6-7 months, that he had transferred his rights, under the lease in favour of the respondent No. 2 (Shri Salag Ram Watch Maker) without the written consent of the petitioner and that respondent No. 1 was no longer in possession of the shop in dispute for the last 6-7 months and that respondent No. 2 was in possession of the said shop and carrying on his business of repairing watches etc. for the last 6-7 months. An application was made by the landlady for the appointment of a Local Commissioner. The Local Commissioner was appointed who went to the spot and submitted his report. The Local Commissioner was also examined in Court as a witness and made a statement as to correctness of the report made by him. In his report, the Local Commissioner has stated that the shop is in possession of respondent No. 2 Slag Ram and some Almirah and some empty bottles were lying in the shop and that there was dust on the bottles and it appeared that nobody had dealt in the buying and selling of medicines. Respondent No. 1 could not be served in the ordinary course and he was served by substituted service. After service he filed a written statement through counsel and in the written statement it was stated that rent from 1st of October, 1964 to 30th of November, 1965 was tendered in Court along with interest and costs and the same accepted by the petitioners counsel. This ground was given up and accordingly this ground no longer exists. It was also denied that the shop had been sublet. It was, however, admitted that respondent No. 1 had gone to England for a short time, but it was denied that he had gone there for service. The presence of Takhatposh in front of the shop of respondent No. 2 was admitted but it was stated that Tehbazari for the Takhatposh was being paid by the answering respondent i.e., Dr. Ram Sarup. It was also admitted that respondent No. 2 carried on watch repairing on the Takhatposh. Regarding the opening of the shop it was stated that it was being looked after by the family of respondent No. 1. It was emphatically denied that respondent No. 2 was doing any watch repairing business in the shop in dispute. It would therefore, appear from the pleadings that the only ground that survived for trial was whether there had been parting with possession of the shop by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. The case of the petitioner was that there was a parting with possession, whereas the case respondent No. 1 was that the shop was in his possession because it was opened and closed by his family members. Evidence was led on this matter and the Rent Controller after going through the evidence came to the conclusion that parting with possession of the shop was not proved. In other words, there was no subletting of the shop, with the result that the petition was rejected. Against this decision, an appeal was taken to the Appellate Authority.

3. The Appellate Authority has reversed the decision of the Rent Controller. The Appellate Authority has held that the possession of the shop is with respondent No. 2 because the keys of the shop were with respondent No. 2. He opens and closes the shop. Respondent No. 2 in the witn