Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. By this common judgment both the revision petitions namely Civil Revision Nos.3556 and 3704 of 1997 can conveniently be dispose of together. Both the revisions are directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller, Dhuri, dated 6.10.1995 and of the Appellate Authority, Sangrur, dated 13.3.1997 and the other against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Dhuri of the same date and of the Appellate Authority also of 13.3.1997. The parties are the same. 2. The relevant facts are that petitioner had filed an eviction petition against the respondents with respect to the property in dispute. The sole surviving ground which requires consideration is if respondent No.1 Vinod Kumar Methra Wala had sublet the premises and parted with the same to respondent No.2 or not. It had been asserted that respondent No.1 is not working in the property for a period of 4 to 5 years before filing of the petition and it is respondent No.2 who is in possession and carrying on business therein. Respondent No.2 in this process was described to be a sub-tenant without written consent of the petitioner. Respondents had filed a joint written statement. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 is the sole proprietor of the business and respondent No.2 is a mere employee of respondent No.1. In this process it was denied that property in question had been sublet or parted with. 3. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues and recorded the evidence. On appraisal of the evidence it was held that petitioner has failed to prove that respondent No.1 had sublet the property to respondent No.2 or has parted with the possession. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. An appeal was preferred. The learned Appellate Authority agreed with the reasoning of the learned Rent Controller and recorded that it has not been established that property in question had been sublet or parted with. Hence, Civil Revision No.3556 of 1997 has been filed. 4. Another petition for eviction had been filed. Therein also before the learned Appellate Authority a similar ground of eviction had been raised which had been negatived. Reasoning was the same. Aggrieved by the said order. Civil Revision No.3704 of 1997 has been filed. 5. Hence, Civil Revision No.3556 of 1997 has been filed. 4. Another petition for eviction had been filed. Therein also before the learned Appellate Authority a similar ground of eviction had been raised which had been negatived. Reasoning was the same. Aggrieved by the said order. Civil Revision No.3704 of 1997 has been filed. 5. An application had been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to lead additional evidence and place on record the copies of the documents which had been filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Dhuri. It had been asserted that a criminal complaint had been filed against respondent No.2. In reply to the petition for eviction it had been denied that the property had been sublet. In fact respondent No.2 was served as proprietor of Mathura Sweets and permission was claimed to place on record the said documents. These documents were very much available at the time when proceedings before the learned Rent Controller were going on. Reference had been made to the complaint that has been filed by the learned Appellate Authority also. Thus, with due diligence these documents could well have been filed at the earlier stage. Therefore, the necessary ingredients of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not satisfied. Necessarily, the application must fail. 6. Certain basic ingredients in law are not in controversy. It is for the landlord to establish the ground of eviction that the property has been sublet or parted with. But once a third person is shown to be in possession, the onus would shift and it is for the third person and the tenant to explain the position. If the possession is not explained, the inferences of subletting can be drawn. 7. The concepts of subletting and parting with the possession are well known. Subletting is inferred when between the tenant and the third person, there is a relationship of landlord and the tenant. Mere possession of a third person which would be permissive may not be a ground for holding that property has been sublet. Similarly, in case of parting with possession, it would be parting with the legal possession. This Court in the case of Lajwanti and Anr. Mere possession of a third person which would be permissive may not be a ground for holding that property has been sublet. Similarly, in case of parting with possession, it would be parting with the legal possession. This Court in the case of Lajwanti and Anr. v. Daulat Ram, (1990-2)98 P.L.R. 426 had considered the same and held:- "Sub-letting as understood in the legal term as well as by an ordinary prudent person is creation of a lease by a lessee. It amounts to transfer or parting with lease hold rights by the tenant in favour of another person, who is known as sub-tenant. It is transfer of the lessee rights by the tenant which had been made the ground for ejectment by the statute. Mere granting of licence for using the premises for consideration was not the ground of ejectment nor mere use of the premises were made the ground of ejectment. Tenancy laws having been made to protect them are to be liberally construed in favour of the tenants." 8. Reference can well be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Kumar (Died) through LRs v. Smt. Swaran Lata and Ors., (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 391 (S.C.). The Supreme Court held that mere presence of a person other than the tenant does not prove the case of subletting. The Court held:- "Coming to the second question the expression Sub-letting" has not been defined in the Act. The conclusion on a question of subletting is a conclusion on a question of law devised 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 expression "sub-letting", this Court considered the same in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. Angoori Devi, 1984(3) S.C.R. 216 in an eviction proceeding under UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act. The Court held that merely from the presence of the person other than the tenant in the shop, subletting 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 sublet, the allegation has to be proved. The question of subletting was considered by this Court in the case of Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors., 1988(1) S.C.R. 1023 and it was held that in; order to construe subletting 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". In the case of Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. Chokosiri and Company, 1982(2) S.C.R. (Suppl. 310) (supra) this Court considered the question of subletting and held that the burden of making a case of subletting is on the landlady. It was also held that the transaction of subletting in the guise of licensees are in their very nature clandestine arrangements between the tenant arid the sub-tenant and it would be difficult to get direct evidence on the same. If exclusive possession of the alleged sub-tenant 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." On the touch stone 6f the same, one can proceed and revert back to the facts of the case. Strong reliance was placed on the fact that respondent No.2 was prosecuted in a case under the Prevention 6f Food Adulteration Act as proprietor of Mathura Sweets. But during the course of arguments, it was not disputed that respondent No.2 has been discharged. There is nothing on the record to indicate that any finding was recorded that respondent No.2 had been held to be the proprietor of the concern. There is also nothing to indicate that respondent No.2 claimed himself to be the proprietor. Merely because a complaint in this regard had been filed, is no ground to conclude that respondent No.2 was the proprietor of the concern. 9 It was further urged that accounts have not been produced to show that respondent No.2 is the employee of respondent No.1. But even on this count the plea had to be stated as rejected. Withholding of the accounts permits the Court to draw the adverse inference. 9 It was further urged that accounts have not been produced to show that respondent No.2 is the employee of respondent No.1. But even on this count the plea had to be stated as rejected. Withholding of the accounts permits the Court to draw the adverse inference. But before any such inference could be drawn, it should have been established that respondent No.2 was in exclusive possession to the ouster of respondent No.1. The same is missing. Therefore, it cannot be termed that it has been established that respondent No.2 was in legal possession or was a sub-tenant therein. 10. A finding of fact has been arrived at that respondent No.2 is an employee and the same is based on material. When the contrary is not shown nor it is established that the finding is erroneous, this Court will not interfere under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act. 11. For these reasons, the revision petitions being without merit must fail and are dismissed.