JUDGMENT M Srinivasan, C, J.-— The landlords who have failed before both the Authorities under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act in so far as two of the grounds of eviction are concerned, are the petitioners in this revision petition Eviction was sought on three grounds in all, (i) arrears of rent, (ii) unauthorised sub-letting and (iii) putting the building to a different user, name y, converting it into a non-residential one whereas it was let out for residential purposes. The Rent Controller found that the tenant was in arrears of rent and ordered the eviction. It is now stated before me by the learned Counsel for the respondents that arrears of rent had been deposited within the statutory time limit and the order of eviction has become unenforceable. 2. As regards other two grounds, namely, sub-letting and putting the building to a different user the Rent Controller held against the landlords On appeal, the findings of the Rent Controller have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 3 In this revision petition, the first contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there was a clear denial of title on the part of the tenant in the pleadings and eviction ought to have been ordered on the ground of such denial of title. My attention is drawn to the reply filed by the tenant wherein, he had raised the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and the petition for eviction was not maintainable and also that he became a tenant under M/s. Khushi Ram Rewal Chand Sood and he had never attorned to the petitioners in these proceedings. This question does not seem to have been argued before either the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioners says that this ground should have been taken into account by the authorities under the Act and eviction ought to have been granted I am unable to accept this contention for two reasons. This question does not seem to have been argued before either the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioners says that this ground should have been taken into account by the authorities under the Act and eviction ought to have been granted I am unable to accept this contention for two reasons. One, there is no provision under the Act as such enabling the landlord to get an order of eviction on the ground of denial of title during the course of proceedings in eviction as the denial had come into existence only in the reply filed by the tenant in the proceedings for eviction, I do not find any provision in the Act to enable the landlord to obtain an order of eviction on the ground of such denial of title but the learned Counsel contends that in such cases, principles applicable under the general law will apply and ought to have been invoked in this case by the Authorities, The only principle of general law if at all is under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act In sub-section (g) of the said Act, a notice has to be given by the lessor in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine the lease on account of denial of title. In this case, no such notice was given prior to the institution of the proceedings though notice of termination of tenancy was given on other grounds. Secondly, as a matter of fact, the denial of title cannot be said to be malafide or suffering for want of bona-fides. Admittedly, the tenancy was at the instance of M/s. Khushi Ram Rewal Chand Sood business of which was being conducted by the grand-father of the petitioners herein. A perusal of rent receipt Ext. R-1 issued on 7-7-1985 shows that it was issued on behalf of Khushi Ram Rewal Chand Sood and it is not in the individual name of any of the petitioners There is no statement either in the petition for eviction or in the deposition of PW I as to how the individuals, who are the petitioners before me, have become owners of the building after the death of their grand-father. However, it is found by the Rent Controller that the petitioners herein, are the landlords within the meaning of the Act and on that footing, proceedings for eviction have been considered. However, it is found by the Rent Controller that the petitioners herein, are the landlords within the meaning of the Act and on that footing, proceedings for eviction have been considered. I do not find any justification to permit the revision petitioners to claim eviction on the ground of denial of title in the present case. 4. The second ground which is strongly urged before me is that the building has been put to different user. According to the petitioners, the building was let out in the year 1960 for residential purposes and in or about 1980, the building was converted into a non-residential one. Of course, there is statement in the petition for eviction that such conversion was made just about a year and a half prior to the filing of the petition but not that it was in 1980 or any subsequent year. An attempt is made to show that conversion was some time in 1980 or thereafter. For this purpose, learned Counsel places reliance on Ext. PW9/B which was an application for loan made by the tenant to his Banker, namely, United Commercial Bank In column No. B; while describing the business, it is stated that the same was established in 1980, Learned Counsel wants this court to draw an inference that the business was established for the first time only in 1980 and this document would itself prove that the building was converted into a non-residential one in that year. 5. Reliance is also placed on an application for license made to the Municipal Corporation in 1985, An employee of the Municipal Corporation has been examined as a witness and he had produced certain documents on summons being issued. According to him, application was made for license on 1-4-1985 and it is contended before me that it was only then the building was converted into non-residential one None of these documents will show that the building was converted into a non-residential one at that the time either in 1980 or in 1985, The statement made in Ex PW 9/B by will not itself show that before 1980, the tenant was not carrying any business in the premises ; nor the application for license would conclusively show that there was no business before 1985. In fact in his cross-examination, the municipal employee has stated that he never inspected the premises and he had not done any spot checking during the relevant period. He was not in a position to say clearly that there was no business in the premises prior to 1985 He has admitted that license was required only for particular type of business and in this case the tenant was doing business in vegetables, bread and bakery when he applied for licence which was sanctioned on 1 5-1983, 6. Reliance is also placed upon Ext PW10/A dated 3-12-1985. It is a communication sent by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sanjauli Electrical Sub-Division to the petitioners counsel in reply to a letter from the petitioners counsel dated 23 11-1985. It is stated therein that electricity connection was released on 4-3-1960 and commercial connection was released on 1-10-1983 in the premises known as Shop No 8 Khushi Ram building, Sanjauli. It is also stated therein that Nand Lal had obtained the signatures on the application from the owner in token of no objection certificate. It is the case of the landlord that he had not signed any application submitted by the tenant for getting commercial connection and his signatures had been forged. The said document, which has been referred to in the letter of Assistant Executive Engineer, has not been made available to the court and it was represented that it was not traceable. No doubt, learned Counsel wants to submit that an adverse inference should be drawn there from and the court should proceed on the footing that the document had been suppressed deliberately as it contained forged signatures There may be some force in that contention but that has no relevance to the main question. The question which arises for consideration before me is whether the tenant converted the premises into non residential one for the first time in 1980 or later. The communication sent by the Assistant Executive Engineer would only show that commercial connection was released on 1-10-1983. That does not show that before the date, the tenant was not using the premises for non-residential purposes though on the basis of domestic tariff. The communication sent by the Assistant Executive Engineer would only show that commercial connection was released on 1-10-1983. That does not show that before the date, the tenant was not using the premises for non-residential purposes though on the basis of domestic tariff. The tenant might have taken advantage of domestic connection which is against the rules bat that will not prove that the building was converted by him into a non-residential one for the first time in 1980 or later The case of the tenant that he was using the premises both for residential and non-residential purposes from the inception of the tenancy, does not stand disproved by the said document. 7. It is the case of the tenant that he was doing business in the premises since the inception of the tenancy, According to him, one room in the building was used as Shop whereas the remaining part was the residential portion It is his case that he never converted the building from a residential one to non-residential This case was supported apart from other evidence, mainly by Ext R-2 and R-X. Exhibit R-2 is Statement for Registration of Establishment under Section 13 of the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 in Form-F, which is dated 22-3-1961 and signed by the respondent-tenant. According to that statement, he had submitted an application for registration of his establishment for the year 1961-62 and had furnished the necessary information as required by the provisions of the said Act. In the bottom portion. Inspector of Shops and Commercial Establishments has signed it and he has filled up that portion by giving relevant reference No. Shimla/58/7l9 and that bears date 22-3-1961. This document is an official document and that shows that business was being carried on in the premises in question from 1961-62 itself, 8. Exhibit R-X is the other document which is issued by the Shimla Municipal Corporation. It is a Tax Department Inspection List bearing date 24-7-7F with reference to the petitioners premises and it mentions the building as Shop No. 8 Sanjauli. It has been issued by the Assistant Secretary, Tax Department, Municipal Corporation, Shimla Reliance has been placed by both the authorities under the Act on these two documents In addition to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. It has been issued by the Assistant Secretary, Tax Department, Municipal Corporation, Shimla Reliance has been placed by both the authorities under the Act on these two documents In addition to the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. The authorities, after considering the entire evidence adduced on the side of the landlord, thought it was not worthy of acceptance and, on the other hand, they have accepted the evidence adduced by the tenant, particularly in view of the fact that the two documents referred to above support the case of the tenant, 9. I do not find any infirmity whatever in the discussion or appreciation of evidence and while sitting in revision, there is no ground for me to interfere with the concurrent findings of the authorities below. 10. The last contention by the learned Counsel fox the petitioners is that the building has been sub-let by the respondents. According to him, the respondent tenant has sub-let a portion of the premises to his son Narinder Kumar Sood. For this purpose, reliance is placed upon Ext. PW 9/B which is a copy of the application for loan made by the tenant to the United Commercial Bank. J do not find anything m the said document in support of the case of sub-letting. The document merely says that loan was sought both in favour of tenant Nand Lal Sood and his son Narinder Kumar Sood. There is no other evidence on record to prove the subletting of the premises by the tenant in favour of anybody else. The courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that ground of sub-letting is also not established. In such circumstances, there is no merit whatever in this revision petition and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed.