JUDGMENT S.N. Bhattacharjee, J. In this appeal the substantial question of law, in the facts and circumstances of this case, may be formulated as under: (i) Whether the learned first appellate court committed error of law in coming to a finding that the defendant/appellant is guilty of sub-letting without appreciating that the appellant did not surrender his legal possession by handing over exclusive possession of the suit premises in favour of the sub-tenant and without taking any compensation from him; (ii) Whether the findings of the courts below that the tenant had left the suit premises sometime in 1974 for Izol to live with her husband thereby surrendering the tenancy in favour of the subtenant is based on no evidence and hence are perverse. 2. The respondent herein filed Title Suit No. 585 of 1978 for eviction against the appellant/tenant from the suit premises on the ground of unauthorised sub-letting in favour of her elder sister and for default in payment of rent. The defence was that the defendant shifted the suit premises at 22, Nasiruddin Road, Calcutta from her earlier residence at 12, Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta in 1970-71 as a tenant along with elder sister Mrs. Anna Tibi and children of the latter as members of one family. The tenancy was taken in the name of the defendant for the use and occupation of the defendant as also her sister to the knowledge of the landlady. The defendant thereafter got married and her elder sister also took her second husband. Their mother also lived with them. With the growth of family the defendant required additional accommodation and shifted to 54, Elliot Road without sacrificing the tenancy in the suit premises. Therefore, according to the defendant, the elder sister was never a sub-lessee under the plaintiff. 3. On the basis of evidences of record the ld. Their mother also lived with them. With the growth of family the defendant required additional accommodation and shifted to 54, Elliot Road without sacrificing the tenancy in the suit premises. Therefore, according to the defendant, the elder sister was never a sub-lessee under the plaintiff. 3. On the basis of evidences of record the ld. trial Judge found, "It is quite usual for two unmarried sisters to live together but when one of them on getting married shifts her to a separate tenanted matrimonial house and then leaves for Mizoram where her husband carried on business the joint family ceases to subsist and parting of possession exclusively in favour of the elder sister may be legally interpreted to be assignment of tenancy of sub-letting although there may not be evidence of receipt of any consideration by the person so relinquishing possession exclusively." The learned trial Judge further found: "Admittedly, just after getting married the defendant took tenancy of a different premises at 54, Elliot Road, Calcutta. The defendant's evidence that after marriage she and her husband would sleep at 54, Elliot Road and take food at the suit premises with her elder sister Miss Tibi is totally unacceptable inasmuch as 54, Elliot Road is not at all adjacent to the premises No. 22, Nasiruddin Road. The plaintiff produced electoral rolls (Ext. 4) to show that in 1984 Constituency roll the defendant's name does not appear under the address of the suit premises and in 1982 Electoral Roll her name does find berth under the address at 54, Elliot Road, Calcutta. The defendant's evidence that in 1984 she gave up possession of the tenanted premises at 54, Elliot Road as her husband moved outstation in connection with business may not be disbelieved but that cannot exonerate her of charges of sub-letting or parting with exclusive possession because firstly conduct and intention of the parties clearly reveal that with the defendant's moving to 54, Elliot Road soon after marriage she severed her jointness with Mrs. Anna Tibi thereby resulting in the end of the presumption that tenancy was taken for the use and benefit of both the sisters and secondly it is not imperative on the part of the landlord to prove that sub-tenancy must subsist till the institution of the suit or at the time of delivery of judgment. Anna Tibi thereby resulting in the end of the presumption that tenancy was taken for the use and benefit of both the sisters and secondly it is not imperative on the part of the landlord to prove that sub-tenancy must subsist till the institution of the suit or at the time of delivery of judgment. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case as well as evidence on record, I am of the judgment that the defendant has exclusively parted with possession and sub-let and transferred the tenancy in favour of Mrs. Anna Tibi who ceases to belong one family in 1974." 4. On the basis of such finding the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit for eviction against the defendant. In appeal the learned first appellate court also found: "Original defendant has not been able to show any paper that she has been residing in the suit premises at present. She has candidly admitted that since long years ago she is not drawing any ration. She has not been able to show that her husband is maintaining the establishment in the suit premises and she has no paper to show that the rent is paid from her income. From her admission, it appears that she has married in 1971 and soon after her marriage in 1974 she got a separate tenancy in her name at 54, Elliot Road and retained the tenancy even upto 1984. We are to bear in mind that the present suit was instituted in 1978. So, during the pendency of the suit the defendant was occupying another tenancy in her name at 54, Elliot Road. It is also evidence that her husband stays at Mizoram at present and there is no evidence that the defendant's marriage has broken up. So, from the evidence, it is satisfactorily proved that the defendant is not at present residing in the suit premises." Upon such finding of facts the appeal was dismissed. Against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court, the defendant has come up with this Second Appeal. 5. Mr. Sengupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has sought to assail the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below on the ground that both the courts below erred in law by overlooking the requirement of law. 5. Mr. Sengupta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has sought to assail the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below on the ground that both the courts below erred in law by overlooking the requirement of law. In proving the sub-tenancy, two ingredients had to be established, firstly, the sub- tenant must have exclusive right or possession or interest in the premises or part of the premises in questions and secondly that right must be in lieu of payment of compensation or rent. He relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1974 SC 280 and AIR 1987 SC 2055 (Dipak Banerjee vs. Smt.Lilabati Chakraborty). According to him, the learned court below failed to appreciate that the tenant shifted to 54, Elliot Road not by surrendering the tenancy in favour of her elder sister but because of growing family of which the elder sister was a member. Mr. Sengupta has again assailed the judgment of the courts below on the ground that when there is no evidence in support of any consideration being taken by the tenant from her sister, the alleged sub-tenant, the finding that the elder sister is a sub-lessee is based on no evidence and the judgment is tainted with perversity and that the High Court in Second Appeal can always interfere with such finding. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the court On the basis of detailed discussion of the oral as well as documentary evidences cannot be upset by the High Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure which confers a limited jurisdiction upon the High Court as set out in a plethora of decisions of the Apex Court. Some of the recent decisions are reported in (1998) Vol. 6 SCC 748, (1998) Vol. 6 SCC 683 , (1998) Vol. 6 SCC 423, (1997) Vol. 9 SC 604, AIR 1997 SC 106, AIR 1997 SC 2517 . 6. In a case under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 reported in (1997) 2 SCC 334 (S.A. Vengademma vs. Jitendra P. Bora) the Apex Court held: "The tenant under the Karnataka Rent Control Act can be a person as also a family. But brother of the tenant nowhere figures in the definition of family under section 3 (ft) of the Act. In a case under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 reported in (1997) 2 SCC 334 (S.A. Vengademma vs. Jitendra P. Bora) the Apex Court held: "The tenant under the Karnataka Rent Control Act can be a person as also a family. But brother of the tenant nowhere figures in the definition of family under section 3 (ft) of the Act. Had the tenant-respondent been living in the premises and his brother was living with him permissibly, then one could perhaps rule out a case of sub-letting or otherwise as transfer of interest. But, when the tenant-respondent himself had vacated the premises and had gone to live elsewhere, it does not lie in his mouth to say that in leaving his brother behind in the tenanted premises, he has left behind a member of his family, unless, of course, he could have successfully pleaded that the tenancy at the inception was obtained by a joint family of which the brother was a member. This plea, even though raised, has not been accepted by the courts below. The very act of the tenant-respondent of vacating the premises shows that he had abandoned his interest in the tenancy in favour of his brother and in the eye of law effecting a transfer, if not sub-letting. But, sub-letting it would be even on these facts and circumstances because the tenant- respondent has abandoned his possessory interest in the demised premises. Thus the landlord- appellant gets an order of ejectment against both the brothers, the respondents herein." 7. In the instant case, the admitted position is that the defendant shifted to another premises at 54, Elliot Road, on rent and stayed there for ten years upto 1984 during the pendency of the case before the learned trial Judge and as such ratio of this decision squarely applies to this case. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence of payment of any consideration or of rent in kind or any cash between the appellant and the sub-lessee and as such the findings of the learned courts below on this point is perverse. On this point the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sales (Put.) Limited, AIR 1998 (Vo1.3) SCC 1, which relied upon the decision in United Bank of India vs. Cooke Keluey Properties (P) Ltd., reported in 1994 (5) SCC 9 , is apposite. 8. On this point the decision of the Apex Court in Bharat Sales (Put.) Limited, AIR 1998 (Vo1.3) SCC 1, which relied upon the decision in United Bank of India vs. Cooke Keluey Properties (P) Ltd., reported in 1994 (5) SCC 9 , is apposite. 8. Such a contention was raised in a case under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. LIC of India, (1998) 3 SCC 1 . Rejecting the contention and dismissing the SLP preferred by the tenant, the Apex Court held: "Sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sub-let had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sublease. It may be paid in cash or kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump sum in advance covering the period for which the premises is let out or sub-let or it may have been paid or promised to be paid periodically. It may be paid in cash or kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump sum in advance covering the period for which the premises is let out or sub-let or it may have been paid or promised to be paid periodically. Since payment of rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be prove by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case proved at the trial, including the delivery of exclusive possession to infer that the premises were sub-let." 9. The learned courts below therefore, committed no error in law in holding that a sub-tenancy in favour of Anna Tibi, the elder sister of the appellant, has been created by the appellant without consent of the respondent. I am of the opinion that such a finding does not raise any question of law, far less substantial question of law. The judgment and decree appealed against does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.