The burden of proving the existence of a partnership lies on the party asserting it, and in the absence of such proof, the presumption is that the possession of another person in the demised premises is as a sub-lessee.

Ajit Singh Bains, J.

1. Kastur Chand tenant has filed this revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 31st May, 1973, by which the appeal of the landlords was accepted and petitioner was ordered to be ejected from the demised premises.

2. Gujjar Mal, Hans Raj and Krishan Kumar landlord-respondents filed an application for ejectment under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , (hereinafter called the Act) against Kastur Chand petitioner for eviction from the shop indispute on the ground that he had sub let a portion of the said shop to Hari Krishan respondent No. 4 and also for non-payment of rent. The petitioner tendered the arrears of rent along with interest and cost on the first date of hearing before the Rent Controller. He however, controverted the other allegations made in the application by way of filing a written statement in which it was alleged that he did not sub-let any portion of the shop in dispute to Had Krishan who was actually his partner in business and was working in that capacity in the shop in dispute. The parties contested on the following issues :-

1. Whether Kastur Chand respondent has sublet a portion of the shop dispute to Hari Krishan respondent without the consent of the applicants ?

2. Whether Kastur Chand and Hari Krishan respondents are carrying on business in partnership in dispute ? if so its effect ?

3. Relief.

3. The Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 against the landlords and held that Kastur Chand tenant had not sublet a portion of the shop in dispute to Hari Krishan. No finding was, however, recorded on issue No. 2.

In view of his finding on issue No. 1, the Rent Controller dismissed the application of the landlords. Feeling dissatisfied, the landlords filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The latter called for a report on issue No. 2 from the Rent Controller who returned a finding against the tenant holding that in fact there existed no genuine partnership between the tenant and Hari Krishan sub-tenant; and that Kastur Chand and Hari Krishan were not carrying on business in partnership. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the appeal of the landlords was allowed and the ejectment of the tenant was ordered. Hence this revision petition by the tenant.

4. Before me it has been urged by the learned counsel for the tenant petitioner that the Appellate Authority was in error in reversing the findings of the Rent Controller on issue No. 1 and that its finding on issue No. 2 that partnership between Kastur Chand tenant and Hari Krishan is not proved is erroneous and based on a report by the Rent Controller. I do not find merit in this contention. The Appellate Authority has given cogent reasons to record this finding. Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act provides the basic ingredients in a partnership and is reproduced below :

"4. `Partnership is the relation between persons who have agreed to share the profits of a business carried on by all or any of them acting for all.

Persons who have entered into partnership with an another are called individually `Partners and collectively `a firm and the name under which their business is carried on is called the "firm name".

The plain reading of this provision shows that in order to establish partnership, it must have the following elements:

(i) It must be the result of an agreement between several persons.

(ii) the agreement must be to share the profits and loss of a business and

(iii) the business must be carried on by all or any of them acting for all and there must be an intention to become partners.

In the present case, the report of the Rent Controller and the finding of the, Appellate Authority clearly shows that there are many infirmities in the partnership deed Exhibit P-1 and in fact there was no partnership at all. Among the infirmities, the basic infirmity is that there is no provision in the partnership deed as to which of the partner shall carry on the business or