Judgment : 1. Landlord is the revision petitioner herein. The petition for eviction was filed by him on the ground of wilful default, sub-letting and act of waste. The Rent Controller passed order of eviction holding that there is unauthorised sub-letting only. The appellate authority reversed the finding on the ground of sub-letting and dismissed the petition for eviction. 2. I find from para 7 of the counter of the first respondent the following admission: TAMIL From this it very clear that the first respondent admitted that his father has been asked to collect rent from the persons occupying the two shops. This arrangement can be only by way of agency or that the father was given permission in writing to sub let the premises. The burden is squarely falls on the first respondent to prove that either himself or his father had authority to sub-let. There is absolutely nothing produced before the authorities below to show that his father had the right to sub- let given to him in writing. The appellate authority is clearly in error in holding otherwise. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the finding of the appellate authority that there is no sub- letting, is wrong. The appellate authority has not given any specific finding as to whether the first respondent or his father had a permission to sublet. Admittedly, R" and R3 are tenants in the premises even on the date of filing the petitioner. They are total strangers. There is no privity of contract between R2 and R3 and the landlord. So it is primary duty of the first respondent to prove how R" and R3 came into the premises. The appellate authority has failed to advert to these facts and came to the wrong conclusion. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the previous tenant who was there from 1945 was vacated and first respondent was put in possession as a new tenant on the day on which the first respondent took over as a tenant respondents 1 and 2 were sub-tenants. Therefore, according to the first respondent, he has taken over the premises along with respondents as sub-tenants. It is admitted that first respondent is main tenant and respondents 2 and 3 are sub-tenants. Therefore, according to the first respondent, he has taken over the premises along with respondents as sub-tenants. It is admitted that first respondent is main tenant and respondents 2 and 3 are sub-tenants. It is also admitted that there is nothing in writting given by the landlord to the first respondent which entitles him to treat respondents 2 and 3 as him sub-tenant and collect rent from them. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel that the tenant taken it as one unit along with sub-tenants, there need not be anything in writing authorising him either to take over as sub-tenant or to sub-let the premises cannot be continued. I do not agree with this, as the law is very clear and the Act is very specific that whenever there is sub-tenancy, there should be a permission in writing and in he absence of a permission in writing, the tenant must suffer an order of eviction. 4. Therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the finding of the appellate authority and order eviction on the ground of sub-letting. C.R.P. is allowed. No costs.