JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J —This revision petition has been moved by Shri Mahadeo Rao, tenant, against the judgment of Appellate Authority (Rent Act) in C. M. A. No. 67-S/I4 of 1983 whereby the judgment of the Rent Controller (II), Simla, in case No. 91-2 of 1980 has been affirmed and the tenant have been evicted from the premises in dispute. This is how the matter has been brought here by the tenant challenging the impugned decision. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the landlord initiated an eviction petition before the Rent Controller, Simla, stating therein that he is the owner of shop No. 86 (Western portion) towards Power House at Sanjauli, Simla. The premises are of non-residential nature and Mahadeo Rao was the statutory tenant on payment of Rs. 40 per month as rent, inclusive of taxes. The allegations, on the basis of which eviction has been sought, pertain to the non-payment of rent from 1-8-1979 to 31-8-1980 totalling Rs. 538.80, inclusive of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, and that the tenant had sub-let these premises to Mansha Ram, after coming into force of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971, in the year 1979, without the written consent of the landlord and that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months prior to the institution of the petition and it is Mansha Ram, who has been in possession of these premises since then. On the other hand, the objections of the tenant, inter-alia, are that the petition is not in accordance with law and that the premises have not been sublet to Mansha Ram since they are, as a matter of fact, in his exclusive possession as tenant under the landlord and that Shri Mansha Ram was running the Tea Stall in the premises in question in the name and style of Calcutta Tea Stall in partnership by virtue of written partnership deed dated 27-2-1979, which fact was made known to the landlord in response to the notice served by him through his Counsel and, therefore, in these circumstances, the complaint that the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises for a continuous period of 12 months was not justifiable. So far as the arrears of rent are concerned, it has been stated that the tender of the same was made to the landlord but the non-payment was due to the refusal of the landlord, without any justification to receive the same. So, this dis-entitles him to claim interest and costs of this petition. 3. The Rent Controller framed the following issues in this matter : "1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest and costs as alleged ? OPP. 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 has sub-let the premises in favour of the respondent No. 2, as alleged ? OPP 4. Whether the respondent No. 1 has ceased to occupy the premises for continuous period of 12 months, if so, its effect ? OPP. 5. Whether the petition is in accordance with law as alleged ? OPP. 6. Whether the petition is bad for want of proper description of respondent No. 1 ? OPR 7. Relief" 4. The Rent Controller, after trial of the case, came to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent and the same were never tendered, as stated, so he was liable to pay interest and costs. On the question of subletting, under issue No. 3, the conclusion was that the premises had clearly been sub-let by tenant Mahadeo Rao in favour of Mansha Ram and the partnership setup by them was not, at all, genuine and on this basis found that the tenant, Mahadeo Rao, had ceased to occupy the premises in question for a continuous period of 12 months prior to the institution of the proceedings. Other issues, not very important, also went against the tenant. 5. The matter was brought before the appellate authority and the only point that survived for consideration, related to issues Nos. 3 and 4. The Appellate Authority examined the matter quite exhaustively and affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. These very findings have been assailed in this Court and the whole emphasis of the learned Counsel, appearing for the tenant, has been concentrated to the issue of sub-letting and cessation to occupy the premises by tenant Mahadeo Rao. 6. 3 and 4. The Appellate Authority examined the matter quite exhaustively and affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. These very findings have been assailed in this Court and the whole emphasis of the learned Counsel, appearing for the tenant, has been concentrated to the issue of sub-letting and cessation to occupy the premises by tenant Mahadeo Rao. 6. Shri H. K. Bhardwaj submits that even if it is admitted that the jurisdiction of this Court, while exercising revisional powers under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act is wider than under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, this Court may not, in revision, interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below on the crucial and fundamental issues involved in this case. Reliance is further placed on 1987 (3) RLR 665. Gurditta Mall and others v. Gita Devi; (1988) 2 SCC 172; Hiralal Kapur v. Prabhu Choudhury ; (1987) 3 SCC 538 ; Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and others ; (1987) 2 SCC 219. Sushila Devi and others v. Avinash Chandra Jain and others ; AIR 1968 Delhi 2^9, Sant Ram v. Mekhu Lai and Co., and decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 79 of 1989, Som Nath Sharma v. Prem Lata and others, decided on August 16, 1989. 7. Shri D. D. Sood, submits that the scrutiny of the evidence in this case is essential not only in the interest of justice but also to examine the correctness of the findings arrived at by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority. Keeping in mind the parameters of the jurisdiction of this Court and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I proceed to look into the matter by a reference to the evidence on the record, to assess whether there is scope for interference with the conclusions arrived at by the authorities below. 8. The first submission of Shri D. D. Sood relates to the findings about the partnership that has been set-up by the tenant and the stand of the landlord that the same is not genuine and has been created simply to ward off any possible eviction application In this connection, it is submitted that the partnership can be legally created and the creation thereof with others cannot be termed as sub-letting of the premises by the principal tenant. It is admitted that tenant Mahadeo Rao was initially the tenant in the premises. He was running the tea stall even at the time when these premises were purchased by the landlord from the previous owner Shri Bihari Lal. The name and style under which the tea business was being carried on was "Calcutta Tea Stall". Tenant Mahadeo Rao states that the partnership is genuine. The business in the premises is being carried on under the same name and style. The partnership deed executed between him and Mansha Ram has been duly registered. The telephone, electric meter and the water consumption bills are still in his name although the partnership has come into existence wherein his share is to the extent of 0.25 p. c. and that of Mansha Ram 0.75 p. c. He also states that the accounts are maintained by Shri Mansha Ram and the same are settled between the two partners every year before the month of March and since 1-4-1982 he had received about Rs. 1,200 from Shri Mansha Ram. However, in cross-examination, he states that since 1979, he did not have any residential set in Simla on rent as he had left for Delhi and started living at Daljeet Nagar. There he is doing business of vegetable hawker. His wife is living at R. K. Puram, New Delhi, with his two children in the house of her father, whereas the other two children were living with him. He states that all the children are studying at Delhi and that they had gone to Delhi in April, 1979. He admits that Shri Mansha Ram is exclusively running the business in question while he is living in Delhi. He admits that he could not say about the total proceeds of the shop although he had brought certain account books relating to the shop in question. He also could not point out any entry in these account books pointing out the place where the amount of Rs 12,000, as aforesaid, was mentioned. Significantly, he could not point out any relevant entry supporting the cause of the genuine partnership or retention of legal position by him despite actual business being carried on by Shri Mansha Ram ; rather he has pointed out that Shri Mansha Ram had been getting licences for the shop by forging his signatures. 9. Significantly, he could not point out any relevant entry supporting the cause of the genuine partnership or retention of legal position by him despite actual business being carried on by Shri Mansha Ram ; rather he has pointed out that Shri Mansha Ram had been getting licences for the shop by forging his signatures. 9. It appears quite clear that tenant Mahadeo Rao had left Simla as stated by the landlord and in order to save Shri Mansha Ram from eviction, partnership deed has been brought into existence. Even if the contents thereof specify the share of tenant Mahadeo Rao to the extent of 25 per cent in the which business, it cannot be considered to be a genuine transaction, for reasons aforesaid, and that the terms contained therein lean heavily in favour of Shri Mansha Ram, thereby giving him not only exclusive possession of the premises but also exclusive enjoyment of the same. As a matter of fact, tenant Mahadeo Rao, has not retained any legal possession of the same, as contended vehemently by Shri D. D. Sood. Besides, the circumstances clearly point out his intention to leave not only Simla but also the premises for good with no intention to return back. He has taken away his children alongwith him long back. They are living in Delhi and studying there. He himself is in Delhi carrying on the business of vegetable hawker. His wife is in Delhi. So, no one is at Simla. Further, there is no evidence of his living in any premises in Simla after his having once left this place. 10. Shri D. D. Sood refers to the fact that the court notices were served at the address of the premises in dispue, does not in any way indicate that tenant Mahadeo Rao is living at Simla or carrying on or looking after the business with Shri Mansha Ram. He has not stated anywhere in his version that he is in occupation of the residential premises in Simla where he stays whenever he comes to live in Simla for looking after the business or for the settlement of accounts with Shri Mansha Ram. This he could do very easily and he has failed to do so. 11. He has not stated anywhere in his version that he is in occupation of the residential premises in Simla where he stays whenever he comes to live in Simla for looking after the business or for the settlement of accounts with Shri Mansha Ram. This he could do very easily and he has failed to do so. 11. Furthermore, his statement that the licences for the shop were being taken by Shri Mansha Ram by forging his signatures and bills pertaining to electricity, telephone and water were being paid by Mansha Ram, indicate clearly and conclusively that Mahadeo Rao is not visiting Simla even occasionally for the purpose of writing and filing essential applications wherever and whenever necessary and his receipt of court process appears to be by chance or at the instance of Shri Mansha Ram* About the settling of the accounts and the sharing of the profits, it can also be said that this version is again baseless and has been set-up simply to help the sub-lessee. It has not been shown, as already observed, how the accounts have been maintained and settled ; nor has it been shown where the amounts taken by Mahadeo Rao towards his profit, have been indicated These things could be easily proved by the tenant in case there had been really any genuine partnership between the parties. The nature of the maintenance of the accounts and the conduct of tenant Mahadeo Rao and Shri Mansha Ram, who has not cared even to appear as a witness in the case and defend the actions, show that the transaction of their entering into a partnership agreement is fake and the accounts are being maintained by Shri Mansha Ram as the one that are prepared and maintained in exclusive nature of his business. The reference of Shri D. D. Sood to decisions like AIR 1954 Madras 182, Gundalapalli Rangamannar Chetty v. Delu Rangiah and others ; AIR 1972 Gujarat 6, Mehta Jagjivan Vanechand v. Doshi Vanechand Harakh-chand and others ; 1971 RCJ b34, Vir Bhan Aggarwal v. Kunj Lai and another; and 1970 RCJ 262, Lai and Co. The reference of Shri D. D. Sood to decisions like AIR 1954 Madras 182, Gundalapalli Rangamannar Chetty v. Delu Rangiah and others ; AIR 1972 Gujarat 6, Mehta Jagjivan Vanechand v. Doshi Vanechand Harakh-chand and others ; 1971 RCJ b34, Vir Bhan Aggarwal v. Kunj Lai and another; and 1970 RCJ 262, Lai and Co. and another v. Shri A. R. Chadha and others, is of no assistance since the facts and the evidence appearing in this case is of quite different nature and when once it has been concluded that the partnership agreement is a sham transaction and the premises have, in fact, been sub-let by the tenant to Shri Mansha Ram, who is in exclusive possession of the property and the business and the tenant had left the legal possession as well, these cases are not applicable to the present case. In these circumstances, it is quite evident and clear that the tenant Mahadeo Rao has not only sub-let the premises to Mansha Ram but has ceased to occupy the same, thus, enabling the landlord to seek his eviction- The aforesaid examination of the matter establishes the correctness of the findings arrived at by the authorities below and in these circumstances, I see no reason and justification to take a view other than the one already taken by them. 12. No other point was argued by the learned Counsel for the parties. > 13. Accordingly, 1 see no merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision petition dismissed.-