Judgment V.S.Aggarwal, J. 1. By this common judgment both the revision petition namely Civil Revision Nos. 1631 and 1632 of 1982 can conveniently be dispose of together. Both the revision petitions are directed against the same order of the Appellate Authority. 2. The revision petition has been preferred by Tej Ram and others directed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority, Faridkot dated 27.2.1982. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Appellate Authority had set aside the order passed by the learned Rent Controller dated 29.10.1979. Instead the petition for eviction was dismissed. 3. The relevant facts are that petitioners had filed an eviction application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act against the respondents with respect to the property in dispute. The sole surviving ground of eviction has been as to if the promises in question had been sublet by Parshotam Dass to Sham Lal respondent. It has been pleaded that Parshotam Dass had handed over a portion of the premises to respondent No. 2 and has transferred the lease right to him. In the joint written statement filed, the fact has been denied. It was pleaded that respondent No. 1 had started the business of Pan, Berri and Cigarette etc. in small portion of the shop in partnership with Sham Lal. This has been done only to raise the income. It is denied that front portion has been divided into two parts. Plea was raised that small portion of the shop where business of Pan, Berri etc. was being run is demarcated by wooden almirahs and planks so that these goods could be stored in almirahs. It was of temporary nature. 4. The learned Rent Controller had framed the issues with respect to the said controversy and concluded that the partnership deed so produced cannot be taken to be a genuine document and accordingly an order of eviction was passed. Two appeals were preferred, one by Parshotam Dass and other by Sham Lal, the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant. The learned Appellate Authority held that it cannot be termed that partnership or partnership deed were bogus documents and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been preferred. 5. The learned Appellate Authority held that it cannot be termed that partnership or partnership deed were bogus documents and accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been preferred. 5. During the pendency of the revision petitions, Parshotam Dass respondent had died and his legal representatives have been brought on the record. 6. On behalf of the petitioner it was argued that the learned Rent Controller had rightly concluded that the partnership deed so produced purported to be the agreement of partnership between the respondents is not a genuine document. In support of his claim reliance was placed on the fact that this document was not produced with the written statement and there was delay in filing of the same. But the said contention is indeed devoid of any merit. It had been pleaded by the respondents that there was a partnership deed. If the same was filed little later, that itself will not imply that it was not a genuine document. As would be seen hereinafter in fact it was established that there is a partnership that was in existence. 7. So far as the report of the Local Commissioner is concerned, indeed it is of little consequence because it is admitted that respondent No. 2 Sham Lal in working with respondent No. 1 in the suit premises. 8. But learned counsel for the petitioners pertinently pointed that the alleged sub-tenant Sham Lal did not appear in the witness box and therefore, adverse inferences can be drawn. In this connection it has to be passed against the tenant. The third person, if any, who may be helping the tenant would be liable to be evicted and consequently the final conclusion necessarily must be arrived at on appraisal of the evidence on the record. Since the third person who is described as a sub-tenant draws his rights, if any, from the tenant, his non appearance in the peculiar fact will not permit the Court to draw the adverse inferences. 9. The respondents had produced, Assistant Treasury Officer of Mansa who had produced the copy of the extract from the register of receipts maintained in the Sub Treasury." This shows that Rs. 3/- were deposited in the treasury on 5.8.1976 under the Head receipt "Indian Partnership Act, 1932." The amount was deposited by Jagdamba Pan House. 9. The respondents had produced, Assistant Treasury Officer of Mansa who had produced the copy of the extract from the register of receipts maintained in the Sub Treasury." This shows that Rs. 3/- were deposited in the treasury on 5.8.1976 under the Head receipt "Indian Partnership Act, 1932." The amount was deposited by Jagdamba Pan House. Further more the evidence was on the record that firm Jagdamba Pan House was registered with the Registrar of Firms on 1.9.1976. Both the respondents were shown to be the partners of the firm. The evidence was further on the record from the income tax departments that such a partnership deed had been produced therein. The stamp vendor even had been examined who has sold the stamp papers on which the partnership was executed. All these documents show that partnership deed had been executed by the respondent. Merely if licence was obtained by respondent No. 2 will not necessarily imply that there was no genuine partnership. 10. Once the tenant is in legal possession and he enters into a partnership with the ; third person and continues his legal possession, inferences of subletting cannot be drawn. In this view of the matter, there is no ground to interfere in the findings arrived at by the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the revision petitions must fail and are dismissed.