ORDER : 1. The only question in this revision petition is whether the lower Court has rightly placed the burden of proof on the defendant-applicant with regard to the issue of sub-tenancy alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's suit is for ejecting the applicant Santoshilal and one Balo, on the ground that Santoshilal who had taken on rent the premises in question from the plaintiff has sublet the premises to Balo and that this Balo has opened a shop in the name and style of 'Banshal Stores' in the premises. In reply to the allegation of the plaintiff the defendant has stated that he has not sublet the premises; that Balo is his uncle and that he i.e., the defendant himself is the owner of the Bansal stores located in the premises. On these pleadings the trial Court has 'inter alia' framed the following issue namely whether defendant 2 is not a sub-tenant of defendant 1 and whether Bansal Stores' belong to defendant 1 and whether defendant 2 lives in the Stores as he is the uncle of defendant 1". The burden of proof of this issue has been placed on the defendant-applicant. 2. In this revision petition learned counsel for the applicant contends that as the plaintiff is seeking to eject the defendant Santoshilal on the ground of his having introduced a sub-tenant, it is for the plaintiff to prove the fact that Balo is a sub-tenant and that the Bansal Stores belong to Balo. It is no doubt true that the burden of proving the sub-tenancy is on the plaintiff. The sub-tenancy alleged rests on the allegation that a portion of the premises which the defendant had tenanted is now in possession of Balo and that Balo has opened the Bansal Stores therein. When this allegation is proved it would be presumptive evidence of the sub-tenancy and the burden would then shift on to the defendant to establish the capacity in which Balo was occupying the premises in question. In the present case the facts that Balo is using a portion of the premises and that Bansal Stores have been located in the premises have been admitted by the defendant, Santoshilal in his written statement. In the present case the facts that Balo is using a portion of the premises and that Bansal Stores have been located in the premises have been admitted by the defendant, Santoshilal in his written statement. If, therefore, the plea of the defendant Santoshilal is that he himself is the owner of the Stores and that Balo is using the premises because he is his uncle, then it is for the defendant to prove his ownership of the Stores and his relationship with Balo. The confusion in the present case about the burden of proof has arisen because the trial Court framed the issue relating to sub-tenancy in negative terms, combining with it facts which the defendant is required to prove. In place of the issues stated above the trial Judge should have framed the following two issues : "(1) whether defendant 2 Balo is a sub-tenant of defendant Santoshilal. "(2) whether Santoshilal is the owner of the Bansal Stores and whether Balo is living in the premises by reason of his being the uncle of the defendant Santoshilal. (3) The burden of proof of the first issue would be on the plaintiff and that of the second would be on the defendant. (4) The learned trial Judge should, therefore, frame the issues in the light of this order and dispose of the plaintiff's suit according to law. To this extent this revision petition is accepted. Costs of this petition shall follow the result of the suit in the lower Court. Order accordingly.