JUDGMENT : S.D. Agarwala, J. This is a Defendant's second appeal arising out of a suit filed by the Plaintiff Respondent for ejectment of the Appellants from the Balthak of house No. 237 and for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. The ejectment of the Appellant was sought on the ground that the Appellant Madan Lal. Mehrotra had sublet the accommodation in suit to Mukund Lal Kapoor (sic) shifted his residence to quarter No. 64, block No. 11, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi after handing over the possession of the accommodation in suit to Mukund Lal Kapoor. The Appellant contested the suit on the ground that he did not sublet the accommodation in dispute to Mukund Lal Kapoor. It was alleged that Mukund Lal Kapoor was hit own brother-in-law and he has been living with him in the house in dispute since the inception of the tenancy. It has bean farther alleged that the Appellant has not relinquished the possession from the house in dispute and his son, his father and his brother-in-law are living in the house in dispute as before and the Appellant also stays in the house in dispute occasionally when he comes from Delhi to Ghaziabad. 2. The trial court decreed the suit for arrears of rent and dismissed the suit for ejectment on 23rd October, 1971, Against the said judgment an appeal was filed by the Plaintiff Respondent. The appeal was allowed by the lower appellate court by judgment dated 18th March 1972. Against the judgment dated 18th March 1972 the present second appeal has been filed in this Court by the tenant Appellant. 3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has urged that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the Appellant had sublet the premises is a finding vitiated in law and' is based on no evidence. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The trial court held that the Appellant and Mukund Lal Kapoor, the alleged sub-tenant, are close relations and are living jointly in the accommodation in dispute since the partition of India and Pakistan. The trial court further held that the son and the father of the Appellant are living in the accommodation in dispute and that the Appellant frequently comes to Ghaziabad and stays with the alleged sub-tenant and that hit luggage is also lying in the accommodation in dispute. The trial court further held that the son and the father of the Appellant are living in the accommodation in dispute and that the Appellant frequently comes to Ghaziabad and stays with the alleged sub-tenant and that hit luggage is also lying in the accommodation in dispute. The lower appellate court has brushed aside the evidence of joint possession of Respondent No. 2 Mukund Lal Kapoor on the ground that it is sot relevant. This view of the lower appellate court is wholly erroneous in law. The fact whether the alleged sub-tenant has been staying with the tenant for a very long time is a most relevant consideration to be considered on the question whether a subtenancy has been created or not. The entire finding of the lower appellate court has been based on the ground that the Appellant has been transferred to Delhi and has been allotted ft quarter there. This by itself is not sufficient to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the Appellant and Mukund Lal Kapoor. There is no evidence at all to indicate that any agreement of sub-tenancy had been entered into on the Appellant with Mukund Lal Kapoor. No evidence or other circumstance has been brought to my notice to substantiate this Fact. The entire judgment of the lower appellate court in based merely on surmises and just because the Respondent No. 2 Mukund Lal Kapoor is the brother-in-law of the Appellant. In the absence of any evidence of sub letting the view taken by the lower appellate court that the Appellant had sublet the premises is clearly vitiated in law. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied on Ram Prakash v. Shambhu Dayal AIR 1960 Allahabad 395. In this ease it has been categorically held that there must be cogent evidence that - relationship of sub-tenant was created an the sub-tenant was given exclusive possession of the premises. In the instant case, as stated earlier, there is no evidence of sub-tenancy. Further the possession of the alleged sub-tenant has been continuing since the time of partition. In the circumstances it cannot be laid that there was any contract of sub tenancy between the Appellant and Mukund Lal after he had been transferred to Delhi. 6. In the instant case, as stated earlier, there is no evidence of sub-tenancy. Further the possession of the alleged sub-tenant has been continuing since the time of partition. In the circumstances it cannot be laid that there was any contract of sub tenancy between the Appellant and Mukund Lal after he had been transferred to Delhi. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed the judgment of the lower appellate court dated 18th March 1972 is set aside and that of the trial court dated 23rd October, 1971 is restored. In the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.