ORDER Attar Singh, F. C—This is a revision petition preferred by the petitioner Smt. Sahni against the order, dated 23-9-1982 of the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Sahani, petitioner applied under section 14-A (i) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act in form L for the ejectment of S/Shri Bhikham and Kbazana, respondents from the land comprised in Khata No, 101, Khasra No. 518 (New Khasra No. 806) entered in Jamabandi for the year 1968-69 and area measuring 1 / Kanals 8 Marias (O-72-91 Hectares) on the grounds that Shri Bhikham, respondent/tenant had sub-let the tenancy to Shri KLhazana, his brother, secondly that Shri Bhikham, tenant failed to pay rent for the last six harvests i. e. Kharif 1970 to Rabi 197 5. The respondents contested the claim/application of the petitioner and on the pleadings of the parties, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade framed the following issues :— (i) Whether the respondents are not liable to be ejected in view of the Notification ? OPP (ii) Whether respondent No. 1 has sub-let the land in dispute to respondent No. 2 ? If so, its effect. OPA (iii) Whether respondent No. 1 has paid the rent due to the applicant ? OPR (iv) If issue No 3 is not proved, then whether, respondents are liable to be ejected for non-payment of rent as alleged ? OPA (v) Whether the present application is liable to be dismissed or stayed as prayed ? OPR (vi) Relief. 4. Both the parties adduced their evidence before the trial Court who after considering the facts on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to prove his allegation of sub letting and as such issue No. 2 was decided against her, Since their case for the recovery of rent was pending before the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade (Tehsildar) at that point of time, therefore, this Issue No. 3 being sub-judice, the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade did not give his findings on this issue and Issue No. 4 and Issue No. 1 were not pressed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade. The petitioner being dis-satisfied with the findings of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade went in appeal before the Collector, Kangra District who maintained the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner being dis-satisfied with the findings of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade went in appeal before the Collector, Kangra District who maintained the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade and dismissed the appeal. Smt. Sahni being dis-satisfied a revision petition before the Ld. Divisional Commissioner, Kangra Division where she met with the same fate and hence this second revision, 4. I have heard the parties and perused the court record. Before roe, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has pressed two point 1st is that the issue regarding sub-letting of the land in dispute by the respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 had been proved on record and the courts below have mis-construed the evidence brought on record and his second contention was that the issue regarding the non-payment of rent, too, has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt and revenue courts below should have ordered the ejectment. I have carefully gone through the material available on record and considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. Regarding question of sub-letting of land in dispute it is on record that on the application of Shri Bhikham, respondent No. 1, the name of Khazana, respondent No. 2 was deleted from the revenue record of KHASRA GIRDAWARF by the Tehsildar, Kangra and his order was never challenged in appeal and thus the same had become final. Under these circumstances, sub-letting of the land in dispute is not proved and as such the revenue courts below have rightly decided this issue against the present petitioner. Even otherwise, had his name remained in tact and unchanged in that event also the position would have been that Shri Bhikham and Sh. Khazana were in cultivating possession of the land in dispute. So at the most it could have been said that both Bhikham and Khazana were co-tenants of the property. Unless it is proved that the tenant has relinquished his complete possession in favour of his sub-tenant it could not be said that sub-letting has been done. To prove sub-letting 1 must hold that two things are necessary-first surrender of legal possession by the tenant, secondly exclusive possession of the sub-tenant. Mere occupation by another person as a licensee or invitee and joining another person/ partner for assistance does not create a sub-lease. In other words, to create a sub-lease, there should be an exclusive possession of a sub-tenant. Mere occupation by another person as a licensee or invitee and joining another person/ partner for assistance does not create a sub-lease. In other words, to create a sub-lease, there should be an exclusive possession of a sub-tenant. In this case, the material point which has turned the case of the applicant otherwise is correction of KHASRA GIRDAWARF by the Tehsildar which, order does not appear to have been challenged in appeal or revision and as such the same became final. I hold that the Revenue Courts below have rightly decided this issue. Regarding non-payment of rent it seems to me that since the case for the recovery of rent was pending at that point of time in the court of Tahsildar, Kangra. therefore, the matter being sub-judice, the Assistant, Collector, 1st Grade had rightly refused to decide these issues. The Collector in appeal and the Ld. Divisional Commissioner in revision have upheld the findings of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade on this issue, I, too, do not see any irregularity or illegality in the judgment of the court below on this issue. 5. Here it would be pertinent to mention that both the respondents had expired much before the filing of the present petition. Shri Bhikham died on 15-8-1981 and Shri Khazana in August, 1977. Although an application to bring their LRs. on record was filed by the petitioner in this Court the fact which requires consideration is that the petitioner has filed revision petition against dead persons. The legal position is, that no case is maintainable against the dead persons and petition fails on this short ground alone. 6. The result of the foregoing discussion is that revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. Orders be communicated to the parties. Revision dismissed.