MR. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The following questions are involved in this revision petition: -

1. Whether the tenant facing allegation of subletting, who has neither filed his written statement nor adopted the written statement of other co-tenants, is deemed to have admitted the averments made in the eviction petition in terms of Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC?

2. Whether an adverse inference has to be drawn of parting with the possession for consideration against a tenant who leaves the country for 3-4 years leaving the possession with his wife or other family members who have failed to prove that the shop was run in his absence and the person against whom the allegation is made by the landlord that the demised premises has been sublet to him remains elusive?

The tenants are in revision against the orders of the Courts below by which the eviction petition filed by the landlord has been allowed and they have been ordered to vacate the demised premises.

2. In brief, the landlord filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 [for short “the Act”] alleging that he had inducted Gopal Singh (respondent No.1 in the eviction petition) as tenant in the demised premises (shop) at the monthly rent of Rs.350/- plus house tax on 01.06.1984 after executing a rent deed dated 30.05.1984. The eviction was sought, inter alia, on the grounds that respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2001 to 30.06.2002 besides house tax, he has sublet the shop to respondent Nos.2 and 3, he has left India and is no more in possession or active control over the demised premises and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have changed the purpose of tenancy. Respondent No.1 did not appear and was proceeded against ex-parte on 08.01.2003, but later on he was allowed to join the proceedings vide order dated 04.03.2005 but after joining the proceedings he did not file any written statement nor he adopted the written statement of the other respondents. Respondent No.2 filed her written statement. She denied that she is in arrears of rent, rather she had pleaded that the shop in dispute was let out to her husband who has gone abroad but has not left India forever and he is still in possession of the demised premises. She alleged that she is the wife of respondent No.1 and is doing photography work in the demised premises and the respondent No.3 has no concern with it. Respondent No.3 also filed his written statement to deny that he is in possession of the demised premises. However, he did not appear in the witness box. Thus, the position emerges that respondent No.1 neither filed his written statement nor adopted the written statement of other respondents, respondent No.2 filed her written statement and appeared in the witness box, respondent No.3 filed his written statement but did not appear as a witness. The learned Rent Controller, vide its order dated 04.02.2006, framed the following issues: -

“1. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute as the respondent No.1 is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.04.2001 to 30.06.2002 amounting to Rs.5250/- besides house tax? OPP.

2. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the premises in dispute as the respondent No.1 has sub-let the disputed premises to the respondents No.2 and 3 without the permission and consent of the petitioner? OPP.

3. Whether the respondents are liable to be evicted from the disputed premises as the respondents No.2 and 3 have changed the purpose of tenancy by suing the shop as STD/PCO booth without the permission of the petitioner? OPP.

4. Whether the petition is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed as such? OPR.

5. Relief.”

3. After appreciating the evidence on record, the order of eviction was passed by the learned Rent Controller only on the ground of subletting which has been upheld by the learned Appellate Authority.

4. While assailing the orders of both the Courts below, learned counsel for the pe