JUDGMENT D. RAJU, C.J.—The above Revision Petition has been filed under Section 24 of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order passed by the Appellate Authority (I), Shimla, dated 8.8.1995 in C.M.A. No. 63-S/14 of 1993, where under the Appellate Authority has set aside the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Theog, dated 24.5.1993 in Case No. 5/II of 1991, allowing the petition filed l under Section 14 of the Act on the ground of unauthorised sub-letting of the premises in question. The fact that late Hari Krishan was the tenant ( of the premises in question from 27.5.1982 and that he was personally carrying on tailoring job in the premises till his death in March 1991, is not in dispute. There is also no dispute about the rate of rent being Rs 480 per annum and the fact that the arrears of rent claimed in the petition have been already remitted in the Court and the only question that remained for inquiry and adjudication by the Rent Controller was as to the claim of the landlord about the unauthorised sub-letting of the rented premises. The landlord/Petitioner besides examining himself as RW. 1, had P.Ws. 2 and 3 examined, to substantiate his claim about the alleged sub-letting. The Respondents, who are the wife and two sons of late Hari Krishan, on their side got examined R.W. 1 the wife, R.W. 2, whose name also happened to be Hari Krishan and one Bani Ram as R.W. 3 in support of the stand of the Respondents. 2. After considering the materials on record, the learned Rent Controller held that since the children of Hari Krishan are in Government service outside Theog and no witness has spoken that the wife of Sri late Hari Krishan works in the shop and thereby runs the same, the parting of possession of the disputed premises by the Respondents to the two alleged workers by name Nirmal Singh and Raju has been proved and the alleged commission is really the consideration for sub-letting, particularly in the context of the inability of the Respondents to produce any record said to have been maintained in running the shop on commission through workers. Consequently, the Rent Controller ordered eviction, by granting at the same time 90 days time from the date of the order to deliver vacant possession. 3. Consequently, the Rent Controller ordered eviction, by granting at the same time 90 days time from the date of the order to deliver vacant possession. 3. The Respondents, the heirs of late Hari Krishan, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the learned Appellate Authority has chosen to reappreciate the materials on record in the manner it appealed to him and after analysing the materials on record, the Appellate Authority drew conclusions quite contrary to the one arrived at by the Rent Controller and ultimately held that the plea of alleged sub-letting taken by the landlord is without any factual basis and there is nothing on record to prove the plea of sub-letting. Per contra, the learned Appellate Authority held that the rented premises are still under the control of the Respondents and Nirmal and Raju, who were working in the shop since the lifetime of deceased Hari Krishan, continued to do tailoring work with the wife pf the deceased. Consequently, the order of eviction has been set aside by the Appellate Authority and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved, the landlord has filed the above revision. 4. The Respondents, though duly served with notice of the revision, have not chosen to engage any Counsel to contest the claim or conduct the case on their behalf. Since the Respondents have remained ex parte, the Revision was heard by hearing the submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord. 5. Mr. Aggrieved, the landlord has filed the above revision. 4. The Respondents, though duly served with notice of the revision, have not chosen to engage any Counsel to contest the claim or conduct the case on their behalf. Since the Respondents have remained ex parte, the Revision was heard by hearing the submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner/landlord. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the landlord/Petitioner, while inviting my attention to the decisions reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2179 {Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt Surjit Kaur), A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 455 (Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed), A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 744 (Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla) and A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1240 {M/s. Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India), and strenuously contended that the Appellate Authority committed a grave error in misdirecting itself as to the essential ingredients in the matter of proof of sub-letting and that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority that there was no subletting is not warranted and is opposed to the materials on record and that, therefore, this Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction under the Act, has the necessary jurisdiction to interfere with such findings and consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority is to be set aside and the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller has to be restored. 6. The decision in A.I.R, 1987 S.C. 2179 (Vinod Kumar Arora v. Smt. Surjit Kaur), is authority for the proposition that even while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is fully justified in rejecting the finding of the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, even though it is a finding of fact, when both the Authorities have based their findings on conjectures and surmises and have lost sight of relevant pieces of evidence which have not been controverted. That was also a case arising under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act pertaining to the claim of the landlord for recovery of possession of the leased premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for owners occupation. That was also a case arising under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act pertaining to the claim of the landlord for recovery of possession of the leased premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for owners occupation. In A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 1240 (supra) also, a similar view has been expressed by the Apex Court, in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 455 (Masjid Kacha Tank, Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed), it was held by the Apex Court that interference with findings of facts while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the High Court is permissible in case the findings of fact are perverse, or there has been non-application of mind. The decision in A.I.R 1991 S.C. 744 (Rai Chand Jain v. Chandra Kanta Khosla), is authority for the proposition that the revisional powers conferred under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, is wider than the power of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if findings of Appellate Authority are not based on evidence on record, the High Court can reverse them. The decision in AIR 1998 SC 1240 (supra) of the Apex Court holds that proof of subletting does not merely depend upon proof of payment of monetary consideration and it can be inferred from proof of delivery of exclusive possession. 7. While dealing with the claim of a landlord for eviction of a tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of unauthorised sub-letting under the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, in A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 1757 (Jaffar Hussain Ebrahim v. M/s. Taiyabali Dawoodji Rangwala), the Apex Court held that no inference js called for at the instance of the landlord by sustaining the plea of sub-letting when it was found that all through the suit premises was in the possession of the original tenant, who never parted with the possession, more so exclusively. In (1996) 1 S.C.C. 25 (Dev Kumars/. Swaran Lata), the Apex Court, while dealing with a claim for eviction on the ground of sub-letting under the E.R Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, held while reiterating the necessary ingredients therefor, as hereunder:— "9. Coming to the second question the expression sub-letting has not been defined in the Act. In (1996) 1 S.C.C. 25 (Dev Kumars/. Swaran Lata), the Apex Court, while dealing with a claim for eviction on the ground of sub-letting under the E.R Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, held while reiterating the necessary ingredients therefor, as hereunder:— "9. Coming to the second question the expression sub-letting has not been defined in the Act. The conclusion on the question of sub-letting is a conclusion on a question of law derived from the findings on the materials on record as to the transfer of exclusive possession and as to the said transfer of possession being for consideration. As to what is the true meaning of the expression sub-letting1, this Court considered the same in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Angoori Devi [(1984) 2 SCC 590] in an eviction proceeding under U.R Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. The Court held that merely from the presence of the person other then the tenant in the shop, sub-letting cannot be presumed and as long as control over the premises is kept by the tenant and the business run in the premises is of the tenant, sub-letting flowing from the presence of the person other than the tenant in the shop cannot be assumed. It was further held that in an application for eviction of a tenant from a shop which is based on the allegations that the premises has been sub-let, the allegation has to be proved. The question of sub-letting was considered by this Court in the case of Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma [(1988) 1 SCC 70] and it was held that in order to construe sub-letting there must be parting of legal possession of the lessee and parting of legal possession means "possession with the right to include and also right to exclude others". 10. In the case of Rajbir Kaur v. S. Chokesiri & Co. [(1989) 1 SCC 19], this Court considered the question of sub-letting and held that the burden of making a case of sub-letting is on the landlady. It was also held that the transaction of sub-letting in the guise of licences are in their very nature clandestine arrangements between the tenant and the sub-tenant and it would be difficult to get direct evidence on the same. It was also held that the transaction of sub-letting in the guise of licences are in their very nature clandestine arrangements between the tenant and the sub-tenant and it would be difficult to get direct evidence on the same. If exclusive possession of the alleged subtenant is established then it may not be impermissible for the Court to draw an inference that the transaction was entered into with mandatory consideration in mind." It was also observed therein that the conclusions on the question of sub-letting, in the absence of perversity on the part of the Authority concerned, the findings of the Appellate Authority in respect of the said question is not open to interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the said Act. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the light of the materials on record as also the principles of law enunciated in the various decisions noticed supra. In my view, the learned Rent Controller, instead of getting satisfied himself as to the existence of the necessary and essential ingredients to prove the case of the landlord, has surmised and taken it for granted such ingredients to have been proved on the very slender material made available by the landlord/Petitioner, which, in my view, has been rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority under the Act. As pointed out by the Appellate Authority, RW. 2 is none other than a tenant of the Petitioner/landlord and P. W. 3 is a person residing at considerable distance from the place in question and the evidence of P.W. 1 in the teeth of the contra-assertion and claim made by R.W. 1, the widow of late Hari Krishan, which found favour of acceptance with the Appellate Authority, cannot be held to sufficiently substantiate the plea of alleged sub-letting as enjoined on him by the decision in (1996) 1 S.C.C. 25 supra. On going through the materials on records, particularly the evidence of R.W.1, I am unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the same undermined in any manner the stand taken for the Respondents denying sub-letting or that it helps the case or cause of the petitioner/landlord to prove either parting with possession or the plea of first Respondent ceasing to occupy completely or in any manner to prove that the alleged erstwhile workers/tailors were in exclusive possession of the premises to the complete exclusion of the first Respondent, the wife. The factual materials on record and noticed by the Appellate Authority, in my view, squarely justify the legal conclusions and inferences drawn by the Appellate Authority against the landlord/petitioner which, in my view, cannot be said to be vitiated either on account of any perversity of approach in the matter of consideration of the materials or for the reason that such findings and conclusions are not based on any material facts on record. Consequently, I see no justification whatsoever to interfere with the finding of the Appellate Authority in this case, despite the fact that the findings and conclusions of the Appellate Authority are a reversing one. 9. For all the reasons stated above, the revision fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Revision dismissed.