Judgment :- The first respondent-tenant in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1981 on the file of the Controller (District Munsif), Tiruppur is the petitioner in this civil revision petition petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent in this civil revision petition. For the convenience the parties are referred to in this order as per the nomenclature given to in the R.C.O.P. 2. The petitioner filed an application for eviction against the first respondent- partnership firm and respondents 2 to 7 in the said R.C.O.P., who are the partners of the first firm Sec. 10(2)(a) and (b) and (iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the act. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned building. The first respondent partnership firm and the respondents 2 to 7 are the partners of the first respondent The respondents as partners of the first respondent-firm entered into a registered agreement in respect of the petition mentioned A schedule property on 30.8.1976 and also entered into another lease agreement on 30.4.1977 in respect of the petition mentioned B Schedule property. It is specifically agreed in the lease agreements that the respondents should not sublet the petition mentioned premises to any other parson without the consent of the petitioner. Contrary to the terms of the lease agreements the respondents have sublet a portion of the petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders and on the ground subletting the respondents are liable to be evicted from the petition mentioned premises. The respondents also committed acts of waste impairing the utility and value of the building. 3. The respondents resisted the application for eviction contending as follows: The respondents took the demised property on lease for running a Varukadalai mill. The respondents have not sublet any portion of the petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders. M/s.Ambika Traders is only a sister-concern of Venkateswara Mills. The respondents have permitted the sister concern M/s.Ambika Traders to use the petition mentioned premises along with the respondents as the sister concern M/s.Ambika Traders, was started for the purpose of purchase of greengrams on behalf of the respondents. There is no parting with legal possession of the premises by the respondents. The partners of the first respondent firm and the partners of M/s.Ambika Traders are close relations. There is no parting with legal possession of the premises by the respondents. The partners of the first respondent firm and the partners of M/s.Ambika Traders are close relations. Originally M/s.Ambika Traders was started with four partners and it was subsequently reconstituted increasing the number of partners to nine and most of the partners of the first respondent firm have become the partners of the reconstituted firm of M/s.Ambika Traders. M/s.Ambika Traders are not put in exclusive possession of any portion of the petition mentioned premises by the respondents. 4. The Rent Controller, on a consideration of the entire evidence on record, found that the respondents sublet the petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders and consequently passed an order of eviction against the respondents. The rent controller found that the respondents have not committed any acts of waste. 5. As against the order of the Rent Controller the respondents filed R.C.A.No.9 of 1989 before the Appellate Authority (Sub-Court), Tiruppur. The Appellate Authority confirmed the finding of the Rent Controller that the respondents sublet the petition mentioned property and dismissed the appeal. As against the judgment the Appellate Authority the respondents have filed the present civil revision petition. 6. Mr.V.K.Muthuswamy, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the respondent-firm and M/s.Ambika Traders are sister-concerns; the respondents never parted with possession of the petition mentioned premises; M/s.Ambika Traders was never put exclusive possession of any portion of the petition mentioned premises, M/s.Ambika Traders being a sister-concern, of the first respondent-firm is only permitted to use the petition mentioned premises along with the respondents, No rent is paid by M/s.Ambika Traders the respondents, the respondents retained the legal possession of the petition mentioned premises and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents sublet the petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for respondents would rely upon the decisions reported in A.I.R. 1954 Mad 182,1952 M.W.N. 421; I.L.R. (1967)2 Mad. 787 and A.I.R. 1990 S.C.1208. 7. The relevant portion of Sec.l0(2)(ii)(a) of the Act reads as follows: “A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the controller for a direction in behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing against the application, is satisfied- ... ... ... ... 787 and A.I.R. 1990 S.C.1208. 7. The relevant portion of Sec.l0(2)(ii)(a) of the Act reads as follows: “A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the controller for a direction in behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing against the application, is satisfied- ... ... ... ... (ii) that the tenant has after the 23rd October, 1945 without the written consent of the lord- (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or any portion thereof, the lease does not confer on him any right to do so.............. ” The scope of the word ‘sub-let’ came up for consideration before this Court in Rangamannar Chetty v. Rangaiah, (1952)1 M.L.J. 652 : A.I.R. 1954 Mad 182 Subba Rao, J., as he then after reviewing the English Cases on this aspect, held as follows: “It is clear from the aforesaid decisions that there cannot be a sub letting unless the lessee parted with legal possession. The mere fact that another is allowed to use the premises the lessee retains the legal possession is not enough to create a sub lease. Sec.105 of Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of immovable property as a transfer of right to such property. ‘Therefore to create a lease or sub lease a right to exclusive posses enjoyment of the property should be conferred on another.” The learned Judge, while coming to the above conclusion relied on the following passage from Fee on Landlord and Tenant, Sixth Edition, at page 323: “The mere act of letting other persons into possession by the tenant, and permitting them use the premises for their own purposes, is not, so long as he retains the legal possession himself, a breach of the covenant.” 8. In Petroleum Workers ’ Union Represented by the General Secretary, Madras Messrs .A.Mohamed and Company, Madras, (1966)1 M.L.J. 356 : A.I.R. 1967 Mad 33: (1967)2 Mad 787. This Court, dealing with the meaning of sublease falling under Sec.10(2) (ii)(a) of the Act, has observed as follows: “A sub-lease is a demise by a lessee for a lesser term than he himself has. Every lessee, however short his term may be, may make a sublease unless he is refrained by the contract of the tenancy from sub-letting. This Court, dealing with the meaning of sublease falling under Sec.10(2) (ii)(a) of the Act, has observed as follows: “A sub-lease is a demise by a lessee for a lesser term than he himself has. Every lessee, however short his term may be, may make a sublease unless he is refrained by the contract of the tenancy from sub-letting. If the demise is for the whole term or for a period beyond the term, it amounts to assignment. If the lessee divests himself he becomes a stranger the demised property and he has no right to have possession delivered up to him. It is that a covenant against sub-letting will restrain the assignment, but a mere covenant subletting does not prohibit underletting a part of the premises. As long as the remains in possession, he may permit another person to use the demised premises committing a breach of covenant, namely not to assign, underlet or part with the possession of the demised premises. ” Recently in M/s.Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, A.I.R 1990 S.C. 1298, Supreme Court; dealing with the meaning of subletting has held as follows: “Sub-letting means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of the party and the said right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. Parting the legal possession means possession with the right to include and also a right to exclude others. Mere occupation is not sufficient to infer either sub-tenancy or parting possession.......” 9. On the basis of the principles laid down in the decisions referred above, the position of on the question of subletting may be stated as follows: A tenant can be said to sublet demised premises to a third party only when the tenant had permitted the third party occupy the premises and had divested himself completely of the possession of the premises or part thereof. In other words, there must be transfer of the exclusive right to enjoy demised premises by the tenant in favour of a third party and the said right must be in of payment of some compensation or rent. If a tenant had permitted a third party to use premises along with him while the tenant retains legal possession, it will not amount to letting. There cannot be a sub-letting unless the lessee parted with legal possession. If a tenant had permitted a third party to use premises along with him while the tenant retains legal possession, it will not amount to letting. There cannot be a sub-letting unless the lessee parted with legal possession. In light of the position of law on the question of subletting as stated above, let us now examine whether the respondent has sub-let the petition mentioned premises to M/s. Ambika Traders. The evidence in this case discloses that under Exs.A-2 and A-3 the petitioner has let out petition mentioned premises to the respondents. The petitioner has not let in any evidence to show that the respondent parted with exclusive possession of the petition mentioned premises or that M/s. Ambika Traders are put in exclusive possession either the entire petition mentioned premises or any specific portion of the petition mentioned premises the notice, Ex.A-4, the petitioner has stated that the respondents have sublet the petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders. However, in para 7 of the petition R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1981 the petitioner has stated as follows: “The petitioner came to know that a portion of the premises mentioned in Schedules A and herein had been sublet to the firm M/s.Ambika Traders.” But, in the petition for eviction, the petitioner has not specified the exact portion in petition mentioned premises which is sub-let to M/s.Ambika Traders. P.W.1 has admitted her evidence that she does not personally knew about subletting of the petition mentioned premises by the respondents to M/s.Ambika Traders. Her further admission in evidence that she never visited the petition mentioned premises after it was let out to respondents. P.W.1 has also admitted in her evidence that the custody of the key of petition mentioned premises is only with the respondents. P.W.1 has not stated in evidence that M/s.Ambika Traders are in exclusive possession of any specific portion of petition mentioned premises. R.W.1 has stated in his evidence that the respondents are possession of the petition mentioned premises as tenants, that they have not sublet petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders and that M/s.Ambika Traders is only sister-concern of the first respondent-firm. R.W.1 has stated in his evidence that the respondents are possession of the petition mentioned premises as tenants, that they have not sublet petition mentioned premises to M/s.Ambika Traders and that M/s.Ambika Traders is only sister-concern of the first respondent-firm. R.W.1 has further stated in his evidence that partners of M/s.Ambika Traders are closely related to the partners of the first respondent firm and that the respondents permitted the firm M/s.Ambika Traders to use the petition mentioned premises and to carry on their business, but, no specific portion in the petition mentioned premises was given to M/s.Ambika Traders for their business. Exs.B- account books pertaining to the business of M/s. Ambika Traders do not show that any was paid by M/s.Ambika Traders to the first respondent-firm for using the petition mentioned premises. R.W.2 is the clerk writing accounts relating to the business carried by both the firms. His evidence is that M/s.Ambika Traders and the first respondent firm sister concerns, that M/s.Ambika Traders purchases greengrams from other States for first respondent firm and that first respondent-firm fry the green-grams and sell the same the third parties and that for the work done by M/s.Ambika Traders for the first respondent firm they are paid only a commission of 2%. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the evidence of R.W.2 that M/s.Ambika Traders is carrying on business in western portion of the petition mentioned premises and contended that the western portion of the petition mentioned premises was sublet to M/s. Ambika Traders. But, there is no evidence to show that M/s. Ambika Traders was put in exclusive possession of the western portion of petition mentioned premises. The evidence in this case discloses that the partners of the respondent-firm are related to the partners of M/s. Ambika Traders. Ex. B-14 goes to show that after the reconstitution of the firm M/s. Ambika Traders most of the partners of the respondent-firm have become the partners of M/s. Ambika Traders also. The evidence in case further discloses that M/s. Ambika Traders is only permitted to use the petition mentioned premises by the respondents. The petitioner has not let in any evidence to show that the respondents have parted with possession of either the entire petition mentioned premises or any portion of the petition mentioned premises to M/s. Ambika Traders. The evidence in case further discloses that M/s. Ambika Traders is only permitted to use the petition mentioned premises by the respondents. The petitioner has not let in any evidence to show that the respondents have parted with possession of either the entire petition mentioned premises or any portion of the petition mentioned premises to M/s. Ambika Traders. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the respondents have not sublet the petition mentioned premises to M/s. Ambika Traders. The conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller as well the Appellate Authority that the respondents sub-let the petition mentioned premises M/s. Ambika Traders is clearly erroneous. Further the reasoning of the Appellate Authority that when the petitioner has let out the petition mentioned premises only to respondents, the act of the respondents permitting M/s. Ambika Traders to use the petition mentioned premises will amount to subletting is also equally erroneous and cannot countenanced. Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority failed to approach whole question of subletting in the proper perspective and in the light of the principles down in the decisions referred above. The infirmity in the orders of the authorities below that they failed to draw proper inferences from the evidence available on record. The above discussion of mine obliges me to interfere with the orders of the Rent Con trailer and Appellate Authority in this revision. Accordingly the civil revision petition is allowed, orders of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority are set aside and R.C.O.P.No.25 1981 is dismissed. No costs. Petition allowed.