JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge (I), Shimla (Appellate Authority (I), Shimla) in C. M. A. No. 39/14 of 1986 whereby the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller (3), Shimla, in case No 55/2 of 1984 dated 9-9-1986 ordering the eviction of the tenant from the premises in dispute has been confirmed. 2. The facts, briefly, are that the landlord preferred eviction petition against Kuldip Chand (tenant) and Joginder Pal Sharma (Sub-tenant) under section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1971 (herein after for short the Rent Control Act). It mentions two grounds of eviction, namely, arrears of rent from 1-3-1983 to 30-6-1984 at the rate of Rs. 378 per annum and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum and costs and that the tenant had after the commencement of the Rent Control Act transferred his right of tenancy to the sub-tenant without the written consent of the landlord. It has also been stated that the tenant had shifted his residence to Chandigarh where he was working with M/s. Ajeet Goods Transport Company. 3. The case of the tenant has been that he had been offering rent to the landlord but the same was not accepted for reasons best known to the landlord who was also asking for exorbitant enhancement in the rent. It is also the case of the tenant that he is permanently posted at Shimla and is in occupation of the said premises himself though he goes to Chandigarh every now and then in view of his service conditions but he had not shifted to Chandigarh permanently. As to the sub-tenant, his case is that the sub-tenant was his brother-in-law and was sharing the accommodation temporarily as a guest and was looking after the house-holder articles in his absence 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: (1) Whether the respondent No. 1 is in arrears of rent if so, to what extent ? OPP (2) Whether the respondent No. 1 has subletted the demised premises to respondent No. 2 as alleged ? OPP (3) Relief. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: (1) Whether the respondent No. 1 is in arrears of rent if so, to what extent ? OPP (2) Whether the respondent No. 1 has subletted the demised premises to respondent No. 2 as alleged ? OPP (3) Relief. 5. After hearing the parties, the Rent Controller found that the tenant was in arrears of rent It was also found that the premises had been sub-let by the tenant to the sub-tenant without the permission of the landlord. The result was that the eviction petition was allowed and the order of eviction was challenged before the Appellate Authority. There also, the tenant failed and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed. This is how the matter had been brought to this Court by the tenant. Although the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority gave concurrent findings in this case, however, I allowed the parties to make use of the evidence on the findings of the Rent Controller in the interest of justice. From the record of the evidence, it is quite clear that the tenant is working with M/s Ajeet Transport Company and is permanently posted at Chandigarh. He is not occupying the premises for the last 4/5 years. These are in possession of the sub-tenant whose relation has not been clearly established. Neither the tenant has tried to establish the same nor the sub-tenant has appeared in the witness box to do so but the fact of the matter is that the principal care of the tenant has been that he is in possession of the premises and the sub-tenant has been kept temporarily as a guest being his brother-in-law who looks after the house-hold articles in his absence from Shimla in the exigencies of the service. He has failed to establish it. He could have done so by production of his office record as to his permanent posting at Shimla. Moreover, he could have produced those service conditions which required him to move out of Shimla quite offen. 6. Counsel for the landlord referred to the evidence pointing out that the petitioner had been claiming TA and DA. for his coming over to Shimla in connection with the Companys work. Moreover, he could have produced those service conditions which required him to move out of Shimla quite offen. 6. Counsel for the landlord referred to the evidence pointing out that the petitioner had been claiming TA and DA. for his coming over to Shimla in connection with the Companys work. This fact also discloses that the petitioner could claim these allowances only if his permanent place of posting is at Chandigarh and cot when it is at Shimla: 7. Although the tenant has tried to show that he has his ration card at Shimla and that he is also a registered voter but no attempt has been made to produce these documents. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that his family lives at Shimla, rather it appears that his family is in his village in District Una. 8. The tenant has produced certain witnesses to assert that he remains on duty at Chandigarh and Shimla but in view of the other cogent and convincing evidence establishing clearly that the petitioner is permanently residing at Chandigarh and not at Shimla, the evidence of his witnesses is quite weak, shaky and undependable. They could also have produced office record if the tenant had failed to do so. The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the nature of their statements in this case is that they have tried to help the petitioner who is their colleague in the same Company. 9. Now, turning to the question of relationship with the sub-tenant, it has already been said that the tenant has failed to prove it and the sub-tenant also did not appear to establish it. The exact nature of relation ship has not been established nor it has been placed on the record of the case as to how this relation was living at Shimla with the tenant for such a long time. The only inference that can be drawn is that the premises had been transferred to the sub-tenant who was actually in possession of the premises and was not at all dependant on the tenant. 10. Shri G. D Verma, Counsel for the tenant, contended that the tenant has not parted with the legal possession of the premises in dispute and the eviction petition is liable to be rejected. 10. Shri G. D Verma, Counsel for the tenant, contended that the tenant has not parted with the legal possession of the premises in dispute and the eviction petition is liable to be rejected. Reliance was placed on the decisions, namely, 1985 (2) RCJ 27, Ram Kumar and others v. Rajinder Thakur and others, 1969 RCR 982, Bhagwati Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad and others, 1971 RCJ 289 The Punjab Handloom Weavers Apex Co-operative Society v. Smt. Gian Wati, 1983(1) RCR 83, Janab M. Azad v. Fathima Sarohini Suresh and others and 1970 RCR 60, Shri Bhagwan Dass and others v. S. Rajdev Singh and another. There is no dispute so far as the legal principles decided in these cases are concerned. However, in order to apply these principles, one has to look to the evidence that has been adduced by the parties to substantiate their contentions. These principles cannot, thus, be applied unless there is cogent and convincing evidence to demonstrate that the tenant has not parted with legal possession of the premises although someone is found in the disputed premises. 11. It is usually impossible for the landlord to produce specific evidence to prove sub-letting because the tenant and the sub-tenant usually agree together to throw a cloak over the transaction. Sub-tenancy can hardly be proved by direct evidence of persons in whose presence the terms of sub-tenancy are settled since the transaction between them is confidential. It may, in most cases, be a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts of each case. If a tenant himself closes the business and allows an other person to run his shop, it would not be wrong to presume that he has sub-let the premises even if it is contended that the key of the premises is kept by the tenant since keeping of the key by the tenant may be one of the understandings between them to keep away the landlord from initiating eviction proceedings in the matter. So, the initial burden to prove that the tenant has parted with the possession of the premises may be on the landlord, but as soon as the same is discharged by him, it is the duty of the tenant to prove by such evidence as is sufficient to rebut the onus which has come to lie on him (See l AIR 1978 P & H 186, Raj Kumar v. Harbans Lal and others, 1980(l)RLR 439 ; Ram Chander v. Smt, Amar Devi and others and 1970 RCR 604, Hart Shankar Pekkaraia v. Radha. 12. Sub-letting can be proved by relying on circumstances and by drawing correct inferences on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. In Krishan Chand v. Kundan Lal, 1967 PLR (SN) 57, Dua, J. (as he then was) has correctly indicated the approach in case of sub-letting in the following words: "……..that a landlord is almost always a stranger to agreements of sub-letting between his tenant and sub-lessee and he has generally to rely on attending circumstances to establish subletting by necessary inference. It must be very rarely that direct evidence of sub-letting without the landlords consent whether in the form of a lease deed or of testimony of witnesses to whose presence the sub-lease is created, can come to the hands of the landlord. The proof of sub-letting thus depends upon the probability of the premises having been sublet and all that is required is material on which the court can like a prudent person guided by his own experience and judgment, regard being had to the ordinary course of human conduct, reasonably act upon the supposition that the premises have been sublet…….” 13. In view of the aforesaid examination of the evidence and submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The decisions of the Rent Controller and that of the Appellate Authority are up-held and confirmed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. However, the tenant will vacate the premises on or before March 31, 1991. On completion of this period, he will handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the landlord. He will pay the use and occupation charges to the landlord at the current rate. Petition dismissed.