In a case of subletting, the landlord must prove that the tenant surrendered exclusive possession in favor of the sub-tenant and that valuable consideration was received.

H.S.Bedi, J.

1. The present revision petition has been directed against the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated May 29, 1985 whereby on appeal filed by the landlord-respondent, the ejectment of the tenant-petitoner Jagan Nath has been ordered.

2. The facts relevant to the case are that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises i.e. Booth No. 25, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh way back in the year 1978. It was the case of the respondent that with effect from September 2,1981, the petitioner had ceased to occupy the booth in question for a continuous period of four months; and that shortly prior to the filing of the eviction application on September 15, 1982, he had also received information that the petitioner had sublet the demised premises to one Smt. Bimla Rani. It is these two grounds that the eviction of the petitioner was sought.

3. The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the premises in dispute had not remained closed for a period of four months as alleged by the respondent and there was no question of subletting either and such the petitioner was not liable to eviction. In the appeal filed by the respondent, the Appellate Authority concurred with the finding of the Rent Controller on the first point but on "he second, he held that the petitioner had sublet the demised premises to his mother Smt. Bimla Rani and was, therefore liable to suffer.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged on the bask of a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Smt. Krishnawanti v. Hans Raj, 1975 R. C. J. 164 and followed by this Court in Smt. Parkash Wanti v. Rattan Lal Jain, (1976) 78 P. L. R. 13 (S. N.) that there were two ingredients that were required to be cumulatively proved by the landlord in case eviction was sought on the ground of subletting and they were (i) that the tenant had surrendered exclusive possession of the demised premises in favour of the sub-tenant and (ii) that this had been done after receiving valuable consideration. He has also urged that the finding of the Appellate Authority was based on a misreading of the evidence as from the facts put forth even by the landlord himself it was apparent that the business of Deepak Radio which was the exclusive proprietor Ship of Smt Bimla Rani, the alleged subtenant, was being, infact, run by petitioner be has urged that the business being run by her son for the benefit of his mother would not be called a case of sub-letting and for that purpose, he has relied on Krishan Chand and Bhagwan Dass v. Gobind Ram, 1985 H.R.R. 635 and Lajwanti v. Daulat Ram, (1920-2) 98 P L R 426.

5. On behalf of the respondent, it has been urged by Mr Jaswant Jain, learned counsel that the stand of the petitioner in the written statement was that the business was being run by him exclusively with the assistance of employees and it was only at the stage when he produced his evidence to show that Deepak Radio was infact the proprietorship concern of Bimla Rani that the petitioner took a volte face and concocted a new story that he was running the business for the benefit of this mother. He has also urged that the two judgments relied upon by the Appellate Authority i. e. Banta Singh v. Vishwa Nath Dogra, 1981) 83 P. L. R. 763 and Ram Kishan v. Harinder Singh, 1982 (1) Rent C.R. 74. were fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand whereas the one cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner were based on totally different set of facts.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in this petition. At the very outset it is to be noted that the learned counsel for the parties did not raise any argument on the findings relating to the point as to whether the premises in dispute hart remained locked up for a period of four months which was one of the grounds for eviction at the initial stage and the arguments have been addressed exclusively on the question of subletting.

7. It is to be noted that the argument that the two