JUDGMENT M.Srinivasan, C J. (Oral) :- The tenants who are aggrieved by the concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority; have preferred this revision petition. 2. The petition for eviction was filed against one Rattan Chand and petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein. The case of the respondent- land lord was that1 Rattan Chand became a tenant under him with respect to the petitioner premises and had sublet the same to petitioners No. l and 2 herein, who are his grand sons. The said Rattan Chand died during the pendency of the proceedings in 1986. Petitioners No.3 to 6 applied for coming on record as the legal representatives of the deceased Rattan Chand. The application was opposed by the respondent herein and the Rent Controller dismissed the application. On appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order and brought on record the applicants as legal representatives and directed the Rent Controller to consider the question on the merits of the case. That order\ was challenged by the landlord in this Court in Civil Revision No.249 of 1939. The revision was dismissed by this Court with the following observations: "The adjudication of the case without the legal representatives of the First resp6ndent as parties to the proceedings will not be binding on them. Even though the landlord had at an earlier stage of the proceedings opposed the application filed by the legal representatives of the first respondent to be brought on record as parties to the proceedings, counsel for the landlord frankly admits that the adjudication of the case by the appellate authority without the legal representatives of the first respondent on record will not be effective against them and % would therefore further complicate the matter even after an order of eviction is passed against respondents 2 and 3. The only submission by the learned counsel is that the appellate authority itself should have impleaded the legal representatives of the first respondent and would have adjudicated the dispute between the parties without remanding the matter to the court of the Rent Controller. The first respondent died on 4.8.1986 during the pendency of the proceeding before the Rent Controller. The only submission by the learned counsel is that the appellate authority itself should have impleaded the legal representatives of the first respondent and would have adjudicated the dispute between the parties without remanding the matter to the court of the Rent Controller. The first respondent died on 4.8.1986 during the pendency of the proceeding before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller had no occasion for adjudication of the contention raised by the first respondent Now that the legal representatives have been impleaded an opportunity to adduce evidence-in support of the contention raised by the first respondent cannot be denied to them. I am, therefore, of the view that the order of the appellate authority does not call for interference. The civil revision is dismissed." 3. Thus, the petitioners No.3.to 6 were brought on record for the purpose of contesting the proceedings as any finding regarding heritability of the tenancy in their absence would not bind them. Therefore, the Rent Controller had necessarily to decide the question whether the tenancy was heritable and whether it devolved upon petitioners No 3 to 6 herein. 4. The Rent Controller by his order dated 3.12.1990 held that this tenancy did not devolve upon petitioners No.3 to 6 herein and also held at the original tenant Rattan Chand was guilty of subletting the premises to petitioners No. 1 and 2 herein. Consequently, he passed the order of eviction. 5. That order was challenged by the petitioners herein in C.MA No. 11/91 on the file of the Appellate Authority (2), Kangra at Dharmshala. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 1.1.1994. It is the said order, which is challenged before me in this revision petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the question of heritability was concluded by the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision No. 249/89 and it was not open to the Rent Controller to consider the same once again when the matter went before him to be decided on merits. I am unable to accept this contention. I have already pointed put that this court has clearly held that the adjudication of the case without the legal representatives being on record or even the question of heritability or merits would not bind them and consequently they were necessary parties to the proceedings. It was only on that footing, they were impleaded as parties. I have already pointed put that this court has clearly held that the adjudication of the case without the legal representatives being on record or even the question of heritability or merits would not bind them and consequently they were necessary parties to the proceedings. It was only on that footing, they were impleaded as parties. That I will not prevent the respondent herein to contend that tenancy did not devolve upon the petitioners No.3 to 6 on the death of the original tenant Rattan Chand. Hence, the Rent Controller has gone into the question rightly and come to a particular conclusion and the Appellate Authority is, therefore, justified in, deciding that question. 7. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the definition of tenant in the Act imposing a requirement that after the death of the tenant, the tenancy would devolve upon the legal heirs, who were originally residing with the tenant at the time of his death, would only impose restriction in the cases of residential tenancies and not non-residential tenanccies. According to learned counsel, such restrictions are not applicable to -residential tenancies and in those cases the general law of succession would apply and whoever is the legal heir under the general law of succession become the statutory tenant within the meaning of the Act 8. In support of this contention, reliance is placed by learned counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar & Ors., AlR 1985 S.C.796 and the judgment of this court in Vinod Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors., 1995(1) Sim. L.C.452. the case before the Supreme Court arose under the Delhi Rent Control Act. The definition considered by the Judges of the Supreme Court is almost ad idem with the definition found in the Act with which are concerned. The distinguishing feature is that in the case before the Supreme Court, the business which was being conducted by the tenant devolved upon the legal heirs under the general law of succession. . In such cases, the question will be whether those legal heirs on whom the business had devolved would be tenants as defined by the Act. The Supreme court held that the restriction imposed in the definition of tenant would apply only to the residential tenancies and not non-residential tenancies. . In such cases, the question will be whether those legal heirs on whom the business had devolved would be tenants as defined by the Act. The Supreme court held that the restriction imposed in the definition of tenant would apply only to the residential tenancies and not non-residential tenancies. On the basis the Supreme Court upheld the claim of the legal heirs of the tenant; who were carrying on business and who inherited the business of the death of the original tenant. 9. The same principle applied in Vinod Kumars case dealt with by the Court. There also the business devolved upon the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. Hence, the question whether in the case of a business, which had not devolved on the legal heirs the tenancy would devolve upon those heirs did not arise for consideration. 10. In this case, the business which was being conducted in the premise is found to be that of petitioner No. 1 and 2. It has been concurrently found by both the authorities that even during the life time of Rattan Chand, the original tenant, he had no right whatever in the business and it was a partnership firm between petitioner No. 1 and 2. That finding is attacked by learned counsel for the petitioners. According to him, there is no material on record to show that it was a partnership firm and it was the duty of the landlord to have produced such evidence before the Court 11. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. When the application was filed for the legal representatives to come on record, an averment was made that it was a firm in which the deceased tenant Rattan Chand was also a partner, but no document has been produced by the petitioners to show that Rattan Chand was a member of the partnership. If a positive fact is pleaded by particular party and if the relevant facts are within the knowledge of the said party, the burden is undoubtedly on that party to produce the relevant records and establish the said fact. If there was partnership between Rattan Chand and petitioner No. 1 and 2 during his life time, the relevant documents would have been available with the petitioners to produce before the Court and establish the said fact. If there was partnership between Rattan Chand and petitioner No. 1 and 2 during his life time, the relevant documents would have been available with the petitioners to produce before the Court and establish the said fact. The petitioners have not chosen to produce any document to show that Rattan Chand was a partner along with them. They have also not produced the receipts which are said to have been issued by the respondent: According to them, the rent was being paid by the firm during the life time of Rattan Chand on behalf of the tenants, which would according to them establish that the tenant was the partnership firm. Hence, the Courts below are right in concluding that the firm was only between petitioner No. 1 and 2 and Rattan Chand had nothing to do with the said firm. In such circumstances, it cannot be contended that the business devolved upon the legal heirs of Rattan Chand, namely, petitioner No. 3 to 6. Consequently, they cannot claim that the tenancy has been inherited by them or that the tenancy has devolved upon .them as legal heirs under the general law of succession. Consequently, they cannot claim to be the tenants within the meaning of the Act. 12. As regards the second question of sub-letting, it has been found by both the Courts that Rattan Chand has parted with the possession of the entire premises and he did not have anything to do with the business, which, was being conducted by petitioners No. 1 and .2 herein. In such circumstances, the inference drawn by the Courts below that the tenant had parted with the rights within the meaning of Section 14(2) of the Act is unassailable. Sitting in revision, do not find any justification to hold that the findings are vitiated by illegality or impropriety. 13. In the result, the revision petition fails and it is dismissed. There will no order as to costs.