Honble KEJRIWAL, J. – This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.8.1993 by learned Additional District Judge, Hinduan ,reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1982 passed by A.M. J.M. Hinduan, and dismissing the suit for eviction. (2) Brief relevant facts of the case are that the appellant filed a suit for evic- tion against the defendant Mahesh Chand with the allegations that two disputed shops adjacent to each other were let-out to the defendant respondent. The defendant respondent sub-let one shop, which is without any doors to Shri Nirmal Singh.Onthis ground he proyed that a decree for enction be passed against the defendant Mahesh Chand.The trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 23.12.1982.Being aggrieved with the said judgment and decree, defendant Mahesh Chand filed an appeal, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Hinduan, vide his judgment and decree dated 3.8.1993.The learned Judge held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant Mahesh Chand sub-let one shop to Nirmal Singh. Counsel for the plaintiff appellant submits that the trial Court decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of sub-letting buy the appellate court erred in reversing the decree of the trial court. He submits that it has been proved from the evidence on record that the defendant sub-let one shop to Nirmal Singh who has been doing business in the name and style of M/s Khalsa Machinery Works. A sign board under the name and style of M/s Khalsa Machinery Works has been affixed on the shop .Nirmal Singh has been doing the business of repairing of engines. He submits that under such circumstances the Court should have drawn inference, that the defendant had sub-let one shop to Nirmal Singh. In support of his arguments,he placed reliance on Nihal Chand Rameshwar Das V. Vinod Rastogi (1), Harish Tondon Vs. Additional District Magistrate(2), & Dial Singh Amrish Kumar (3) (3) I heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the aforesaid judgments .In my opinion these judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. (4) In Nihal Chands case(supra) the Apex Court held that where exclusive possession of sub-tenant was established it was permissible for Court to draw inference that transaction was entered into for monitory consideration.The Apex Court further held that both the lower Courts had found that the premises were sub-let. (4) In Nihal Chands case(supra) the Apex Court held that where exclusive possession of sub-tenant was established it was permissible for Court to draw inference that transaction was entered into for monitory consideration.The Apex Court further held that both the lower Courts had found that the premises were sub-let. Under these circumstances the Apex Court did not like to interfere with the findings recorded by both the lower courts. (5) In the present case, it has not been proved that Nirmal Singh was in exclusive possession of one shop which is without door,as such his authority is not applicable to the facts of the present. (6) In Harish Tondons case (supra) the facts were that the defendant admitted his son-in-law as a partner in the business.The Apex Court held that son-in-law was not a member of the family u/s 3(g) of the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 , and as such it amounted sub-letting u/s 25 Explanation (i).This case is totally distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. (7) In Dial Singles case(supra) the facts were that the tenant was living in Saudi Arabai. Another person was occupying the premises. Under these circumstances the Apex Court held that it was for the tenant to prove that he was in legal possession and had been conducting business through agent.In absence of this proof, necessary inference would be that tenant parted with possession which am- ounted to sub-letting.This case is totally distinguishable, and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. (8) In Delhi Stationers and Printers Vs. Rajendra Kumar, (3) which is a case under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, the Apex Court has held that sub-letting means transfer of exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of the third party and the said right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent.Parting of the legal possession means Possession with the right to inchnde and also a right to exclude others. Mene occupation is not sufficient to infer either sub-tenancy or parting with possession. Mene occupation is not sufficient to infer either sub-tenancy or parting with possession. (9) In the present case, it is an admitted fact that tenant Mahesh Chand has been doing business of Spare Tractor Parts in the adjacent shop.In the another shop, which was let-out to him , which has no doors, Shri Nirmal Singh was permitted by the defendants to do the work of repairing of engines. Legal possession of the shop was never handed over to Nirmal Singh.The learned Additional District Judge was right in holding that mere occupation by Nirmal Singh or putting a board on the shop is not sufficient to hold that the defendant respondent has sub-let the shop or parted with possession of Nirmal Singh. (10) The finding recorded by learned Additional District Judge is finding of fact. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and as such the same is dismissed. __