JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharma, J —Both the Courts below have held against the petitioner tenant that he has sub-let the premises, Shop No. 1, Ram Bazar, Shimla of which he has been tenant under the respondent-landlord since long. By way of this Revision petition filed under section 34 of the H P. Urban Rent Control Act. 1987 (hereinafter called "the Rent Act"), the petitioner-tenant has challenged the judgment dated 3-9-1988 passed by the Appellate Authority Shimla, whereby the judgment dated 28-2-1987 of Rent Controller (3), Shimla, was affirmed. 2. In the Eviction Petition, besides sub-letting, three more grounds for eviction, ceasing to occupy, materially impairing the value of the building and non-payment of rent, were also taken but the Rent Controller had passed the Eviction order only on the grounds of sub-letting and non-payment of rent, which had become infructuous as the amount due towards arrears of rent was deposited within thirty days from the date of the eviction order. In appeal, the Appellate Authority has confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner tenant. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Sh. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant, has urged that the findings of both, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, that the petitioner-tenant has sub-let the premises in dispute, are not justified on the oral and documentary evidence on record 4. Before dealing with this submission, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rent Act which is as under i— "14. Eviction of tenants— (2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf If the Controller after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant is satisfied— (i) *** *** (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord— (a) transferred his rights tinder the lease or sub-let the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof, or........." 5. By transferring his rights under the lease or sub-letting the building or portion thereof, the tenant parts with legal possession of the tenanted premises and creates sub-tenancy. In a number of its judgments, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that in order to prove tenancy or sub-tenancy, two ingredients have to be established. By transferring his rights under the lease or sub-letting the building or portion thereof, the tenant parts with legal possession of the tenanted premises and creates sub-tenancy. In a number of its judgments, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated that in order to prove tenancy or sub-tenancy, two ingredients have to be established. Firstly, the tenant must have exclusive right of possession or interest in the premises or part of the premises in question and, secondly, that right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. (See : Dipak Banerjee v Smt. Lilabati Chakrahorty, AIR 1987 SC 2085. M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd v. H. C Sharma and others, AIR 1988 SC and Gopal Saran v, Satyanarayan, AIR 1989 SC 1141. 6. In M/s Shalimar Tar Products ltd v. H. C. Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court has further laid down that "Parting of legal possession means possession with the right to include and also right to exclude others" which according to the Honble Judges is a matter of fact. By transfer of rights under the lease by a tenant or sub-letting of the entire building or part thereof, physical possession of the tenanted premises is parted with in such a manner that tenant is divested of his right to exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. Keeping these principles in view# the pleadings and the evidence on record of this case are to be assessed. 7. In answer to question No 16 of its petition, the respondent-landlord has made the following allegations :— "The respondent after making illegal and unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises in petition, i. e by making partition walls in between the shop, a portion of the shop is being sub-letted to some Television dealer and he is doing so without obtaining the necessary written consent of the petitioner. Name of the sub-lettee and rent payable by him is not known." 8. In replay to the allegations of the respondent-landlord, in Para 16, the following averments are made by the petitioner-tenant :— "The contents of this para are wrong, false and a manipulation of a clever mind with some ulterior motive and as such are emphatically denied in toto. It is specifically denied that the respondent has made any illegal, unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises by making partition walls. It is specifically denied that the respondent has made any illegal, unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises by making partition walls. It is also denied being wrong that the portion of the shop has been sub-let to some television dealer, In reply to this para it is submitted that the respondent is running a shop in the premises end the premises is in exclusive possession of the respondent. In fact, about I/4th portion in one corner of the shop a small show-room enclosed by ply-wood sheet and big pane has been made. The shop i. e. entire premises is closed with wooden planks. There is no partition and division of the premises by erecting walls so as to make it two different premises. The entrance and exit is one to the entire shop. The respondent has entered into a partnership with M/s Sabaya Electronic a copy of the deed is attached which is dated 2-12-1982, for the purpose of exhibiting in the show window the television sets. Nothing more than this has been done. The allegations of sub-leting and rent etc. is wrong and denied in view of the submissions made (supra).” 9. From the pleadings of the parties, the controversy has narrowed down whether enclosing go down a corner of the shop, which is l/4th of its area, into small show room and allowing M/s. Sabaya Electronic to exhibit television sets therein, of which firm the petitioner-tenant is one of the partners, amounts to sub-letting or not ? While denying the allegations of subletting, the petitioner-tenant has reiterated his exclusive possession over the premises is dispute where, according to him, he has been running a shop. It is denied mat any partition or division of the premises, by erecting walls has been done to make it two different portions, Further, there is only one entrance and one exit for the shop averred by the petitioner-tenant. 10. Now, it is to be seen whether the parties have proved their respective case on the evidence adduced by them. On behalf of the respondent-landlord, two witnesses, S/Sh. Sudershan Kumar (P W 1) and Kundan Lal Ahuja (PW 2) have been examined, 11. Sudershan Kumar Kapur (PW 1) was Secretary of the respondent-landlord when he gave his statement on 6-12-1986, He was duly authorised to pursue the eviction petition on behalf of the respondent-landlord vide Ex. On behalf of the respondent-landlord, two witnesses, S/Sh. Sudershan Kumar (P W 1) and Kundan Lal Ahuja (PW 2) have been examined, 11. Sudershan Kumar Kapur (PW 1) was Secretary of the respondent-landlord when he gave his statement on 6-12-1986, He was duly authorised to pursue the eviction petition on behalf of the respondent-landlord vide Ex. PW I/A. According to him, after 26-2-1982, the petitioner-tenant had partitioned the shop in dispute by putting planks and plastering it with cement. He has stated that there is “independent" entrance for both the portions of the shop In one of the portions, Sabaya Electronics is running its business of Televisions and cassettes etc. Since 1982-83, it is Sh. Mohinder Singh Sabaya who is sifting in the shop as owner, opening it in the morning and closing it in the evening. As for sub-letting no permission was sought for by the petitioner-tenant, he is liable for eviction In cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion put to him that only a show case of ply wood has been built in a corner of the shop over its l/4th area. He has shown his ignorance that the petitioner-tenant and Mohinder Singh are partners in the business to the extent of 10% and 40% respectively. H e has denied that the petitioner tenant and Mohinder Singh sit in the shop alternately. He has further denied the suggestion that only one lock is put on the single entrance to the shop and has asserted that two locks are put. 12. Sh Kundan Lal Ahuja (PW 2) who was Cashier of the respondent-landlord in the year 1982, has reiterated the statement of Sh. Sudershan Kumar Kapur (PW I). According to him, since 1982, he never saw the petitioner-tenant in the shop in dispute where board "Electronics" is affixed. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in a month, he passed through the shop in dispute 3/4 times. He has shown his ignorance that there is partnership between the petitioner-tenant and Mohinder Singh to the extent of 10 per cent and 40 per cent respectively. Further, he has categorically denied that the petitioner-tenant also sits in the shop along-with Mohinder Singh. 13. In rebuttal, the petitioner tenant Maghi Ram has himself come in the witness-box and has produced S/Sh. Mohinder Singh (RW 2) and Aya Ram (RW 3). Further, he has categorically denied that the petitioner-tenant also sits in the shop along-with Mohinder Singh. 13. In rebuttal, the petitioner tenant Maghi Ram has himself come in the witness-box and has produced S/Sh. Mohinder Singh (RW 2) and Aya Ram (RW 3). According to Maghi Ram, he himself is doing business in the shop in dispute He has admitted that Mohinder Singh has joined him in the Business and with him partnership has been formed. Photo copies of Balance-sheets and partnership deed have been placed on the record as Mark-H and Mark-K to Mark-Q. He has stated that his share In the partnership is 10 per cent. According to him, a show window has been constructed in a corner of the shop for exhibiting television sets. There is only one entrance to the show window and to the shop which is used by him and Mohinder Singh. Only one lock is put on the entrance of the shop which is opened and closed by him. He has explained that wooden partition has been put for the purpose of show window only. Further, he has claimed that as the shop in dispute is in his exclusive possession, there is no question of Its sub-letting to anyone. The cross-examination of this witness is very important to test the veracity of his statement in the examination-in-chief. Though in the examination-in-chief he has not given the nature of the business being run by him in the shop in dispute yet in cross-examination he has admitted that he is a tea vendor. According to him, there are two furnaces in the shop for this purpose. There Is also a water tap but it is not being used for the last three years. The size of the shop given by him is 10’ x 12 out of which the portion being used for the business of television sets is 5 x 6\ According to him, there were about 2/3 Television sets and cassettes lying in the shop on the day of his giving the statement. He has stated that Mohinder Singh goes out for repairing television sets. He has admitted that half portion of his shop remains dosed by affixing planks. When-even fire Is lit in the furnaces, a pipe is affixed for emission of the smoke. He has stated that Mohinder Singh goes out for repairing television sets. He has admitted that half portion of his shop remains dosed by affixing planks. When-even fire Is lit in the furnaces, a pipe is affixed for emission of the smoke. He was not able to produce any bill to show that he had made purchases for his tea shop since 1982. He knew that partnership firm consisted of two more partners besides him and Mohinder Singh but he did not remember their names. He was also unable to tell orally what profit the partnership firm had since 1983 He has admitted that his contribution in the partnership firm is only that he has provided the premises. So far rent of the shop in dispute is concerned, it was he who had been paying it. He has denied that he has sub-let half portion of the shop to Mohinder Singh and the partnership is not genuine Though he has dented the suggestion that shop is opened and closed by Mohinder Singh, yet, he could not produce the key of the shop which, according to him, was lying at his residence It has been admitted by the petitioner tenant in his statement that after 1982 the members of his family left Shimla as he had reduced his work. -He has admitted that his sons have established industry at Mehatpur since 1979 but he has denied that he is working with them. According to him. he, alongwith one of his sons, is residing in Shimla but could not give any evidence in support thereof He did not vote during the election of Shimla corporation in the year 1986 due to the marriage of one of his sons, during that period. He did not remember whether he had cast his vote in the elections of 1984 though he has denied that neither he nor any of the members of his family is a voter in Shimla. He could not produce his ration card also. 14. Sh. Mohinder Singh (RW 2) has admitted in his statement that he has taken 6 x 6’ space from the petitioner-tenant in the shop situated in Arya Samaj building, Ram Bazar, Shimla, for demonstration of television sets. He could not produce his ration card also. 14. Sh. Mohinder Singh (RW 2) has admitted in his statement that he has taken 6 x 6’ space from the petitioner-tenant in the shop situated in Arya Samaj building, Ram Bazar, Shimla, for demonstration of television sets. For this, he has entered into partnership with the petitioner-tenant and has placed on record a copy of the partnership deed as Ex RW I/A. According to him, he gives a statement of profit and loss to the partners and pays them their share of the profits. He has placed on record copies of statements of account Ex. RW 1/B to Ex RW 1/G He has corroborated the statement of Maghi Ram (RW 1) that there is only one entrance to the shop through which he can approach his "show case" and it is Maghi Ram only who has been opening and closing the shop: He has admitted that the “show case” is made of ply wood. In his cross-examination, Mohinder Singh has admitted that other partners in M/s. Sabaya Electronics are his sister Miss Charu Lata and mother Sent Parkashvami. The partnership firm was being run on no profit no loss basis He himself was drawing a pay of Rs i»G00 per month for which he himself had taken the decision without asking the other partners. He has admitted that as per the statements of account, though only losses have been shown in the account of Maghi Ram, yet, he has not asked for dissolution of the partnership. This witness has further stated that the petitioner-tenant has been doing the business of confectioner in half portion of the shop in dispute. He has admitted that so far partnership business is concerned, the petitioner-tenant was only a sleeping partner and If was he and his mother who were operating the Bank accounts of the partnership firm. 15. Aya Ram (RW 3) is another tenant of respondent-landlord in the third shop from the shop in dispute. He has stated that the petitioner-tenant Maghi Ram was running a Halwais shop and for the last 3/4 years in a 6* x 6 area of the shop, a show room of television sets has been set up. According to him, the petitioner-tenant has entered into partnership since there had been conviction in the samples. He has stated that the petitioner-tenant Maghi Ram was running a Halwais shop and for the last 3/4 years in a 6* x 6 area of the shop, a show room of television sets has been set up. According to him, the petitioner-tenant has entered into partnership since there had been conviction in the samples. Even then the petitioner-tenant was running confectioners shop though he had been keeping it closed for some times. There was only one entrance to the shop which was being opened and closed by the petitioner-tenant himself In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that one of the sons of the petitioner-tenant is doing stationery business at Una in which the petitioner-tenant was helping him But he has shown his ignorance that since 1981 the petitioner-tenant has been living with his another son who has established an industry at Una. He has further stated that the petitioner-tenant alongwith his youngest son and wife is living in Shimla at Lal Pani where he had been visiting him. A suggestion that, in fact, the petitioner-tenant had left Shimla after handing over the charge of the shop to him and as such he was opening and closing the shop, has been denied by this witness. He has voluntarily stated that there was only one key of the shop which used to be with the petitioner-tenant. He has denied that partnership is not genuine and has been formed to deceive the landlord- He did not admit that the petitioner-tenant had gone to Una for good after handing over the possession of the shop in dispute. He reiterated that the petitioner-tenant was still doing confectionery business in the shop where there is one furnace as well as water tap for the purpose. He has stated that even he was drawing water from the said tap many a times. 16. Besides the evidence produced by the parties, there is also spot inspection report dated 22-84988 of the Appellate Authority Shimla on record which is reproduced hereinbelow :— “22-1-1988. Present : Sh. B. R. Chauhan, Advocate Counsel for the appellant. Sh. K. D. Batish, Advocate Counsel for the respondent. The premises in dispute have been inspected in the presence of learned Counsel for the parties. The premises in dispute consists of a shop which at the spot, is partitioned in two parts. Present : Sh. B. R. Chauhan, Advocate Counsel for the appellant. Sh. K. D. Batish, Advocate Counsel for the respondent. The premises in dispute have been inspected in the presence of learned Counsel for the parties. The premises in dispute consists of a shop which at the spot, is partitioned in two parts. One part of which was open and was found in occupation of Sh. Mohinder Singh Supaiya the alleged sub-lessee. The other part is closed. The partition between two parts is of plywood but there is no entry to the closed part through the shop occupied by Sh. Mohinder Singh Supaiya. The closed shop is having planks on the front side which are all closed. Part of the shop which was found open, in that shop, a sign board in the name of M/s Supaiya Electronic was there and the shop was meant for sale and repairs of T. V. Sets which in quite large number were found in the shop." 17. After scanning the oral and documentary evidence on record I, have no hesitation to affirm the concurrent findings of both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the petitioner-tenant has given exclusive possession of half portion of the shop in dispute to one Mohinder Singh who is running business of repair and sale of T. V- sets and cassettes their in under the name and style of M/s Sabaya Electronic. Though, to show his exclusive possession over whole of the shop, the petitioner-tenant himself and through his witnesses, S/Sh. Mohinder Singh (RW 2) and Aya Ram (RW 3) has tried to prove that there is only one entrance to the shop through which one can approach the portion where "show window" of "show case" or -show room" has been set up for displaying T, V. sets and cassettes and only one lock is put thereon, which is opened and closed by the petitioner-tenant only, yet, from the statement of Sudershan Kumar Kapur (PW 1) and Kundan Lal Ahuja (PW 2), and, more so, from the Spot Inspection Report dated 22-8-1988 of the Appellate Authority, Shimla, it is clear that the shop has been partitioned in two parts and one part thereof has been in occupation of Mohinder Singh Sabya. The portion in the occupation of Mohinder Singh which has been made by putting partition of ply wood in the middle of the shop has an independent access and it is capable of being used without opening the other portion of the shop which is closed by affixing planks on its front side. 18. From the totality of circumstances proved on record, it cannot be believed that even after setting up of business of T. V. sets in half portion of the shop, the petitioner-tenant has been running a Halwais shop in the other half portion as stated by him and his witnesses. He himself was not able to produce any document to show that he had made purchases for his Halwais shop after 1982. Though he has stated that there were furnaces and water tap in half portion of the shop, yet, admitted that for the last three years the water tap was not being used. In their bid to support the petitioner-tenant, Mohinder Singh (RW 2) and Aya Ram (RW 3) have contradicted the petitioner-tenant by saying that the water tap had been in use. Moreover, the petitioner-tenant himself and his witness Aya Ram (RW 3) have admitted that Halwais shop was not being run regularly in the half portion of the shop in dispute. Above all, from their statements, it is clear that the petitioner-tenant, who is an old man, is not residing in Shimla continuously. Terefore, from the evidence on record, the first ingredient of sub-letting is proved that physical possession to the extent of half portion of the shop in dispute has been exclusively handed over to M/s Sabaya Electronics for running the business of Television sets and cassettes. 19. In order to know the quality, nature and degree of occupation of Mohinder Singh, on behalf of M/s Sabaya Electronics, it is to be examined whether the partnership between Mohinder Singh and the petitioner-tenant is genuine or not ? 19. In order to know the quality, nature and degree of occupation of Mohinder Singh, on behalf of M/s Sabaya Electronics, it is to be examined whether the partnership between Mohinder Singh and the petitioner-tenant is genuine or not ? In Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohammad Mirasaheb Kadri and others, AIR 1987 SC 1782, the Supreme Court has enumerated the important elements of partnership as under j— "......The following important elements must be there in order to established partnership (1) there must be an agreement entered into by all parties concerned, (2) the agreement must be to share profits of business, and (3) the business must be carried on by all or any of the persons concerned acting for all........." In the present case, all these three conditions have been fulfilled and, prima facie, partnership between the petitioner-tenant, Mohinder Singh and ethers is established. But certain clauses of the partnership are required to be examined in the context that the other two partners, Smt. Parkashwati and Miss Charu Lata are mother and sister respectively of Mohinder Singh. These clauses are 6, 7 and 13. Under clause 6, the show room of the partnership firm has been established in half portion of the premises in dispute under the tenancy of the petitioner-tenant Maghi Ram but no provision has been made for reverting this half portion to him if he ceases to be a tenant in any circumstance. As per clause 7, in case any partner of the firm would like to leave the firm, he would have no right whatsoever in the existing assets and future liabilities of the firm. In other words, if the petitioner-tenant Maghi Ram would like to leave the firm, he would lose his right of tenancy over half portion of the shop He will not be able to tell other persons to vacate half portion of his shop, The most important clause is clause 13 which is reproduced hereinbelow :— "In case the fourth partner i. e Sh. Maghi Ram s/o Shri Lachman Dass, Resident of 78/3 Ganj Bazar, Shimla wants to leave the concern then he will have full right to leave the partnership concern from the existing shop." 20. Under this clause, the petitioner-tenant Maghi Ram has surrendered his tenancy rights in half portion of the shop in dispute Further, in the balance sheets/statements of account. Ex. Under this clause, the petitioner-tenant Maghi Ram has surrendered his tenancy rights in half portion of the shop in dispute Further, in the balance sheets/statements of account. Ex. RW 1/B to Ex RW l/G, from 1-4-1982 to 31-3-1985, only losses have been shown in the account of the petitioner-tenant. It cannot be believed that on the one hand he is incurring losses in the partnership firm and on the other hand, he is paying rent from his own pocket to the respondent-landlord and still not exercising his option to come out of the partnership. From all these facts and circumstances. I have no hesitation to affirm the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that the alleged partnership is not genuine. 21. The Judgments in Helper Girdharbhai v Saiyed Mohamad Mira-saheb Kadri and others, AIR 1987 SC 1782 ; Dipak Banerjee v. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty, AIR 1987 SC 2055 and Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayan, AIR 1989 SC 1141, cited by Sh, Bhupender Gupta whereby the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that the partnership was genuine and there was no sub-letting are judgments on the facts of each case. 22. In the last, I must state that I have analysed the evidence to find out whether the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority have correctly appreciated the material on record for arriving at their decision. It is correct that under the revisional powers under section 23 (5) of the Rent Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court is wider than under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it can correct all errors of law going to the root of the decision which would in such case include even perverse findings of fact, perverse in the sense that no reasonable person acting judicially could arrive at such a finding on the evidence on record. In other words, the revisional court must ensure that the principles of law have been correctly borne in mind, the facts have been properly appreciated and the decision arrived at by taking all material and relevant facts in mind But under the guise of revisional power, the revisional Court should not substitute its own view with that of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority because it considers it to be a better view. Therefore, even if it is assumed that another view than the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority is possible, this Court is not inclined to take it. 23. In the result, the Revision petition fails and it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.