ORDER A.N. Verma, J. - By my judgment and order dated 1-10-1982, I had dismissed this petition on merits, even though the petitioner had not appeared. However, subsequently the petitioner moved an application for setting aside of the ex parte judgment on the ground that his counsel was prevented for sufficient cause from appearing on the date fixed for final hearing. An application for condonation of delay in moving this application was also filed. These applications were contested by the plaintiff-respondent but after hearing learned counsel I allowed both these applications, set aside the ex parte judgment and restored the petition to its original number. Thereupon counsel for ' the parties addressed me on the merits of the petition. 2. The suit giving rise to this petition was filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi (respondent 1 herein) for the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop on the ground that the petitioner who was defendant 1 in the suit had sub-let the shop to one Chandra Bhan defendant 2 in the suit and respondent 2 herein and thereby rendered himself liable for eviction. As defendant 1 had failed to vacate the disputed shop despite notice of termination of tenancy. the present suit was brought for the relief of ejectment. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioner on the ground that Chandra Bhan had nothing to do with the disputed shop and it was defendant 1 who was in actual occupation of the same. There was hence no sub-letting. 4. Both the courts below have decreed the plaintiff-respondent's suit with a finding that the defendant Habibur Rehman has sub-let the shop to Chandra Bhan. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding recorded by the courts below on the question of sub-tenancy is unsustainable in law because it is founded entirely on the circumstance that it is Chandra Bhan who is in actual occupation of the disputed shop. It was urged that they should have considered the further question whether Chandra Bhan was in occupation of the shop on payment of rent or some valuable consideration. In the absence of such a finding sub-letting could not be said to have been legally established. Learned counsel cited three decisions reported in 1979 (UP) RCC 175, 1981 All Rent Cas (SOC) 1 and 1981 All Rent Cas 332: (1981 All LJ 168). 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties. In the absence of such a finding sub-letting could not be said to have been legally established. Learned counsel cited three decisions reported in 1979 (UP) RCC 175, 1981 All Rent Cas (SOC) 1 and 1981 All Rent Cas 332: (1981 All LJ 168). 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties. I find no merit in the above contentions. In my opinion in the present case there is a finding to the effect that not only is Chandra Bhan in exclusive possession over the shop but that he is there on payment of consideration therefor. 7. As already mentioned, the principal defence of the petitioner was that Chandra Bhan was not in occupation of the disputed shop at all and that he had been set up by the plaintiff. The petitioner asserted his own possession over the disputed shop. Upon very good evidence placed on the record, both the courts below concurrently found that this plea of the petitioner is false and that Chandra Bhan is in actual and exclusive possession over the disputed shop and not the petitioner. Before the revisional court an argument was raised on behalf of the petitioner that there was no evidence that defendant 2 was paying rent to defendant I and consequently the finding recorded by the trial court that there was sub-letting was manifestly unsustainable in law. Rejecting the submission the revisional court observed that it was established beyond doubt that Chandra Bhan was in occupation of the shop and further that Habibur Rehman does not say that Chandra Bhan was in such occupation as a member of his family or a relation or a friend because of which he was not taking any rent from him. After making this observation the revisional court went on to observe that under these circumstances the conclusion reached by the trial court that defendant 1 had sub-let the shop to defendant 2. was correct. 8. In my opinion, reading the judgment of the revisional court as a whole it is clear that in the aforesaid finding, the finding that Chandra Bhan is in occupation on payment of rent is clearly implicit. The observations of the revisional court indicate that it is not prepared to believe that Chandra Bhan is in occupation otherwise than on payment of rent. It has stressed that Chandra Bhan is no relation or friend of Habibur Rehman. The observations of the revisional court indicate that it is not prepared to believe that Chandra Bhan is in occupation otherwise than on payment of rent. It has stressed that Chandra Bhan is no relation or friend of Habibur Rehman. That being so, the decisions cited by the petitioner are of no assistance to him. Indeed, in the case reported in 1979 (UP) RCC 175 at page 176 (Peshwari Lal v. Surendra Kumar) itself it has been held that the second ingredient for establishing sub. tenancy for proving that the person alleged - to be sub-tenant is in occupation on payment of rent may be established by circumstances from which the relationship of lessor and lessee may be inferred. 9. My conclusion hence is that the courts below have properly appreciated the law as well as the facts and rightly held that the petitioner has sub-let the shop to Chandra Bhan. This finding is not vitiated by any error of law warranting interference by this Court. 10. The next submission was that the fact that Chandra Bhan was paying rent to the petitioner had to be established by the plaintiff, upon whom the burden of proof lay and not the defendant. It was urged that the courts below have not properly appreciated this legal position. 11. I cannot agree. While it undoubtedly is true that the burden to prove that the defendant has sub-let the shop lies on the plaintiff, it would not be right to say that the plaintiff must establish the contract of sub-tenancy by direct evidence. It is not difficult to conceive that more often than not it is impossible for the plaintiff to lead direct evidence of payment of rent by the alleged sub-tenant to the defendant. In my judgment all that the plaintiff is required to establish is the existence of circumstances from which it may reasonably be inferred that relationship of lessor and lessee exists between the defendant and the person found to be in exclusive possession of the accommodation let out to the defendant. The courts below have hence committed no error in deciding the issue of sub-tenancy. 12. No other point was urged in support of this petition. 13. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. 14. The courts below have hence committed no error in deciding the issue of sub-tenancy. 12. No other point was urged in support of this petition. 13. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. 14. The petitioner is, however, granted three months' time within which he will hand over vacant possession to the respondent-landlord. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly induct any other person over the disputed shop.