JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J.:- This Revision Petition has been filed by the tenants laying challenge to the ejectment order passed against them by the Rent Controller, which has been further affirmed in appeal by the learned appellate authority. Parties, here-in-after in this judgment, shall be referred to as landlords and tenants 2. Ejectment of the tenants was sought on the ground of arrears of rent and sub-letting and on appreciation of the evidence" placed by the parties on record, both the learned Courts below haye concurrently held that both the grounds stand fully established and consequently ordered their-ejectment 3. Learned counsel Mr. Bhupender Gupta, appearing for the tenants contends that the courts bellow have exercised their Jurisdiction not wasted in them by law in allowing the proceedings to be converted into once of time without there being proper parties before it.. 4. It is also being argued that the case could not be decided on the solitary admission of Swaya Ram who was initially inducted as a tenant is next submitted that the receipts relied upon by the tenants duty executed by their landladies Jamna Devi and Kashmiri Devi have been wrongly discarded. Mr. Gupta is-at pains to contend that no case of sub-tenancy has been established and the respondents were not their landlords as the shop in dispute had fallen to the share of Tulsi Ram who was succeeded by the above said two women, i.e. his Widow and daughter who inducted them as tenants after the shop had been relinquished and possession handed over to them. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the landlords in reply, adopted the same line of reasoning as has been given By the learned court below in the impugned judgement and further submits that a claim case of sub-heading has been established by the landlords and the agreement of the tenants has been rightly ordered 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length make on careful examination of the impugned judgments and record. I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7.As per learned by the landlords their father Nand Lal let out the shop in question to one Swayar Ram respondent No. 2 Dina Nath who further put his both the sons. i. e. respondents No. 3 and 4 in possessions of the shop. 7.As per learned by the landlords their father Nand Lal let out the shop in question to one Swayar Ram respondent No. 2 Dina Nath who further put his both the sons. i. e. respondents No. 3 and 4 in possessions of the shop. Appears of rent have been claimed with effect form July. 1979 rate of rent is said to be Rs. 23/- per month. 8.. While laying contest to the petitioner Swaya Ram respondent No. 1 admitted that he was induced as tenant by the dlandlords in the year 1955 but denied .that he had let out the shop to respondent No.2, it was picked by him that Dina Nath, respondent No.2, was his partner. Some dispute that is on between respondent No.1 and 2 leading to dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. Non-payments stand admitted by him. Respondent No.2 raised the plea that the respondent were not his landlords as the shop was owned by Jamna Devi widow of Tulsi Ram and Kashmiri Devi his daughter who sold the same in favour of Kishori Lal and Satish Kumar, his sons on November 26. 1981 and that the partnership was carried out for one year only where after he surrendered possession to Jamna Devi and Kashmiri Devi who is after both of them let out the shop to Kishori Lal. Respondent No.3 and then sold it to him and his brother Satish Kumar. It deserves to be noticed here that Kishori Lal and Satish Kumar, respondents No 3 and 4.never put up their: appearance and were consequently ordered to be proceeded against ex parties Undisputedly the three brothers-Nand Lal, Pala Ram and Tulsi Ram—had joint property which is said to have been partitioned in the year 1946 where after thee shop in dispute had fallen to the share of Nand Lal who has Been succeeded by his sons who are the landlords. 9. Ravi Dutt, son of Bhagwan Dass, landlord has appeared as. PW-1. He is also their attorney and has stated that the shop. Was rented out by the landlords to Sways Ram in the year 1955 and the rent has not been paid since June, 1979. This position is accepted even by Swaya Ram; respondent No. l who was initially inducted as a tenant. 10. PW-1. He is also their attorney and has stated that the shop. Was rented out by the landlords to Sways Ram in the year 1955 and the rent has not been paid since June, 1979. This position is accepted even by Swaya Ram; respondent No. l who was initially inducted as a tenant. 10. Strangely, respondent No. 2 has come up with the plea that the shop in question was owned and possessed by Tulsi Ram and had fallen to his share after partition and on his death it has been inherited by his widow and daughter-Jamna Devi and Kashmiri Devi. It is said that these two ladies inducted respondent No. l as a tenant and the respondents are not their landlords. 11. Respondent No.2 has produced Kashmiri Devi as RW-8 who has admitted the partition having taken place and the shop in question having fallen to the share of Tulsi Ram. It is stated by her that the shop was let out by her and her mother to respondent No. 1 who vacated the premises in the year 19751 and thereafter the shop was let out to respondents No.3 and 4 and later was sold out to them. The sale deed is Ext. RW-7/A. 12. Dina Nath has appeared as RW-2 and his son Kishori Lal has also appeared as RW-2 and his son Kishori Lal has also appeared as RW-3. Rent receipts Exts. RW -3/A, RW-3/B-1 to RW-3/B-12, which are alleged to have been executed by Kashmiri Devi in favour of Kishori Lal have also been place on record. These are in respect of receipt of rent. 13. Admittedly, it stands admitted by respondents No, l and 2 that Sway Ram was inducted as a tenant the premises who later joined respondent No. as his partner. It is further an admitted position that the joint business could not go well and the partnership was dissolved. Respondent No: 2 has state that the shop was vacated by Swaya Ram in 1975 and was handed over to Kashmiri Devi where after respondents No.3 and 4, i.e. his ions, were inducted as tenants. 14. Most surprisingly, respondents No.3 and 4, who are said to have been inducted as tenants by these two ladies and later sale was made by them in their favour, have not chosen to contest the present proceedings. Dina Nath admittedly is left with no right. 14. Most surprisingly, respondents No.3 and 4, who are said to have been inducted as tenants by these two ladies and later sale was made by them in their favour, have not chosen to contest the present proceedings. Dina Nath admittedly is left with no right. Title or interest in the shop in question and it is he who has laid contest to the present petition. As said by him. he stopped working in the shop in the year 1975 and possession was handed over .to the owners, has further come in his statement that his relations with his sons are not cordial who are living separately. In this situation, it is not understood as to in what capacity respondent no.2 is contesting this petition. 15. The statement made by Kashmiri Devi also does not inspire confidence. She has made several contract-statements. Copy of one such statement is Ext. PY which was recorded in the proceedings filed by Swaya Ram against Dina Nath. She admits that the statement was correctly made by her. She has stated that the shop was let out by her in the year 1975 to Kishori Lal. In tile very next breath she admits that the shop in question was the petitioners/land lords prior to 1979-80 and she-vas possessing another shop which was tinder the tenancy of Dharampal. The said Dharampal, according to the statement made by her was paying Rs.8/- per month and was still in possession of the Said shop. Another interesting feature in her statement is that the shop in possession of Dharampal was the one which had come to her share in partition 16. The narration of events given by her as said above .makes it clear (hat she along with Jamna Devi were having one shop with them of which Dharampal was the tenant. In the statement made before the Rent Controller she admits partition having taken place more than twenty five years ago. Once this position is accepted, a conclusion can safely be arrived at that the present respondents continued to be the landlords of he shop in dispute and it is really surprising as to how Kashmiri Devi and Jamna Devi claim themselves to have inducted Kishori Lal and Satish Kumar in the year 1975. 17. In her statement Kashmiri Devi further stated that the shop fell to their share after 1979-80 this plea was never raised least proved. 17. In her statement Kashmiri Devi further stated that the shop fell to their share after 1979-80 this plea was never raised least proved. She had categorically admitted that partition had taken place only once and that too twenty- five years ago. Comments have already been made on her act and conduct in the connected Regular Second Appeal No. 197 of 1995 between the contesting panics which has been decided vide separate judgment of even date and the appeal filed by the present respondents/ landlords stands allowed. A decree for possession of the shop in question has been passed in their favour in that appeal and the judgment rendered in the appeal may be read with advantage. 18. It is not the case pleaded by the tenants that Satish Kumar and Kishori Lal were ever inducted as tenants by the present landlords. Once it is accepted that the shop in question was rented out to Swaya Ram and possession of respondents No.3 and 4 is proved, no other inference can be drawn except that the shop in dispute has been let out to them. The rent receipts selied upon by the tenants, in the set of circumstances, can safely be teamed as false and concocted. These appear to have been manipulated by respondents No. 3 and 4 with ulterior motive to get the shop in one way or the other. In the appeal between the parties .which has been separately decided today, they had come au with the plea that they are in possession of the shop as joint owners having purchased the share of Kashmiri Devi and Jamna Devi who were joint owners. It has been held in that judgment that partition had in fact taken place, and Kashmiri Devi had clearly made an admission to that effect in the statements made by her in the court. 19. A clear cut case has been: established by-the landlords in respect of parting with the possession. Unless parting with possession is said to have been made under sonic arrangement negativing the passing of complete control of the premises to the said sub-tenant, finding has to he returned accepting the pica of the landlord. 19. A clear cut case has been: established by-the landlords in respect of parting with the possession. Unless parting with possession is said to have been made under sonic arrangement negativing the passing of complete control of the premises to the said sub-tenant, finding has to he returned accepting the pica of the landlord. No piece of evidence has been placed on record that the shop was vacated and its possession was handed over to these ladies or to the present petitioners who thereafter inducted respondent No. 3 and -4 as their tenants. The sale in favour of the sons of Dina Nath can also be said to be device which is the brain work of Dina Nath to retain possession at any cost. A false plea appears to have been taken by respondents No.3 and 4 in respect of creation of tenancy in their favour. 20. Both the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence and have rightly passed orders of ejectment against the tenants. No case for interference has been made out in this revision petition. 21. In view of what has been stated above, the revision petition is dismissed with costs throughout. Petition dismissed