JUDGMENT T. R. Handa, J. —Respondent No. 1 Shri Vishwa Nath Sood is a tenant under the petitioner Shri Vijay Kumar Goel in respect of the eastern half portion of the premises known as 9L The Mali, Simla The petitioner on 6-7-1970 brought an action under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (Act No. Ill of 1949) for ejectment of the respondents on the sole ground that the tenant-iespondent No. 1 had sublet or otherwise transferred his rights under the lease in respect of the said premises to respondent No. 2 who was then running a liquor vend in the said shop. 2. Respondent No. 1 contested that petition. He denied if he had sublet or otherwise transferred his rights under the lease in favour of respondent No. 2. The counter plea of respondent No. 1 was that he was continuing his crockery business in the premises in dispute along with the liquor business of respondent No. 2 in which he was a partner. His further plea was that ht was in exclusive control and possession of the shop in dispute which remained under bis lock and key. He thus denied if he had sublet or otherwise transferred his rights under the lease in respect of the shop in dispute to respondent No. 2. 3. Respondent No. 2 filed a separate reply to the petition which was on similar lines. 4. The case was tried by the Rent Controller on the following issues: 1. Whether the respondent has sublet or in any other way transferred the premises in dispute in favour of respondent No, 2 ? Opp, 2. Relief. 5. The Rent Controller answered issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioner landlord and passed an order of ejectment against the respondents. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition of the petitioner landlord. The petitioner landlord has now approached this Court in revision. 6. As is obvious from the above narration of facts the short question which calls for determination in this case is whether respondent No. 1 bad sublet the premises in dispute or otherwise transferred his rights under the lease in respect thereof in favour of respondent No. 2. 7. The petitioner landlord has now approached this Court in revision. 6. As is obvious from the above narration of facts the short question which calls for determination in this case is whether respondent No. 1 bad sublet the premises in dispute or otherwise transferred his rights under the lease in respect thereof in favour of respondent No. 2. 7. It is not in dispute that during the financial year 1070-71 a liquor vend was run in this shop under a licence issued in favour of respondent No. 2 This fact, however, will not by itself prove if respondent No. 1 had sublet the premises in question to respondent No. 2. it only shows that there was some arrangement between the respondents inter se by virtue of which respondent No. 2 was allowed to run a liquor vend in the premises in dispute. It is well settled that every transaction between a tenant and a third person involving the user of the demised premises would not always amount to transfer, parting with or subletting by the tenant in favour of the third person. It may be possible for a tenant to permit another to occupy or use the demised premises or a part thereof and at the same time to remain himself in control and possession of the premises. In such a case the question of subletting or transfer of possession in the part of the tenant would not arise. To put in other words a tenant who continues to retain legal control and possession of the premises at all material times cannot be said to have sublet or transferred his rights under the lease in respect of such premises simply because he allowed a stranger to use the premises for some length of time irrespective of the fact whether such user was for consideration or without consideration. In order to prove subletting, the landlord must establish that the tenant had handed over exclusive possession and control of the premises to a third person called the sub-tenant and had himself walked out divested of his right to have the possession restored to him. 8. In order to prove subletting, the landlord must establish that the tenant had handed over exclusive possession and control of the premises to a third person called the sub-tenant and had himself walked out divested of his right to have the possession restored to him. 8. looking at the evidence adduced in this case in the light of the light of the legal principles set out above, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioner has hopelessly failed to establish his plea that respondent No. 1 had sublet or otherwise transferred his rights under the lease in favour of respondent No. 2. In support of this plea we have on record the oral evidence of three witnesses. PW. 1 is the petitioner himself. He simply stated that in the year 1970-71 a foreign liquor vend was run in the disputed premises by respondent No. 2 without his consent and that respondent No. 1 took a lot of money from respondent No. 2 for making the premises available to run the liquor shop He never stated if respondent No. 1 divested himself of his control or possession over the premises in dispute or if respondent No 2 was found in exclusive possession and control of such premises. It may be observed that he was residing in the same building and as such it was not difficult for him to see for himself as to who was in actual control of the premises in dispute. He claimed to have visited the wine shop which would mean the premises in dispute during the period it was used as a liquor vend, but was unable to give the number of rooms in this shop which were at that time in the occupation of respondent No, 1. He also expressed his inability to state whether crockery belonging to respondent No. 1 remained lying in a portion of the shop during that period This only shows that the petitioner was not in a position to deny the fact that the control over the premises in dispute remained with respondent No 1. The other witness on the point is Shri Ghunghar Mall. He did state that he never saw respondent No. 1 sitting or selling liquor in the liquor vend. This witness, however, is admittedly hostile towards respondent No 1. He admitted in his cross examination that his son was employed with respondent No.. The other witness on the point is Shri Ghunghar Mall. He did state that he never saw respondent No. 1 sitting or selling liquor in the liquor vend. This witness, however, is admittedly hostile towards respondent No 1. He admitted in his cross examination that his son was employed with respondent No.. I about three or four years back. Though he expressed his ignorance whether any quarrel took place between his son and respondent No. 1, he added that such like quarrels often took place between the master and the servant He also was not in a position to deny if the crockery of respondent No. 1 was stored in a portion of the shop in dispute during the period it was used as a liquor vend. It may be observed that respondent No. 1 was carrying on crockery business in this shop and in fact as per the case of the petitioner himself the shop was let out to him for this business, the third witness on the point is Shri Ganga Dhar Sharma (PW. ), a clerk of the Excise and Taxation Department. This witness admitted that he never visited the premises in dispute during the relevant period. His evidence is thus totally irrelevant on the point in issue in rebuttal both the respondents appeared in the witness box and also examined Shri Amar Nath (PW. 2) who runs his business in shop No 94, that is, two shops away from the shop in dispute. Shn Ramesh Chand Naruia, respondent No. 2, while appearing as KW. 1 deposed that respondent No, 1 remained in exclusive control and possession of the premises in dispute during the period the liquor vend was run in the shop, tie further stated chat the used to remain at Nahan and during the relevant period he had visited Simla only on two or three occasions. Respondent No. 1 Shri Vishwa Nath Sood (RW. 3) also corroborated the version that the shop in dispute was opened and locked by respondent No. 1 only. In view of the evidence on record there can be no escape from the conclusion that the control and possession over the shop in dispute remained with respondent No. 1 although a liquor vend was run in this shop for some time and that the said liquor vend was run under a licence issued in favour of respondent No. 2. In view of the evidence on record there can be no escape from the conclusion that the control and possession over the shop in dispute remained with respondent No. 1 although a liquor vend was run in this shop for some time and that the said liquor vend was run under a licence issued in favour of respondent No. 2. These facts as earlier stated would not prove subletting of the premises by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2,. 9. In view of my above findings I need not enter into the controversy whether there was any partnership between the respondents inter se with respect to the liquor business which was run in the shop in dispute during the financial year 1970-71, Irrespective of the fact whether there was a partnership between the respondents in respect of that business or not the petition must fail inasmuch as he has failed to establish if respondent No. 1 had sublet or otherwise transferred his rights under the lease in favour of respondent No. 2. 10. For the reasons stated above this revision petition has no merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.