P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE civil revision petition is filed by the landlord as against the judgment in RA No. 119/95 on the file of Additional chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad reversing the order in RC No. l12/ 92 on the file of III Additional Rent controller, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE 1st respondent in the revision is the tenant and it is alleged that the 2nd respondent is the sub-tenant, but however, the relationship between the 1st and the 2nd respondents is that they are brothers. The landlord filed the eviction petition under Sections 10 (2) (i) (a), 10 (3) (iixa) and 10 (3) (iii) (a) of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as "act" in short. The revision petitioner-landlord had averred that he is the absolute owner of the mulgi bearing No. 11-2-926, Habibnagar, hyderabad and the 1st respondent is the tenant and it is alleged that the 2nd respondent was inducted into possession as a subtenant and after coming to know the landlord asked the 2nd respondent to vacate to premises and hence the landlord refused to accept the rents tendered by the 2nd respondent from the month of September, 1991 and suppressing all these facts the 2nd respondent got issued a notice and the landlord gave a suitable reply and having received the reply notice, the 2nd respondent had not taken any action and hence the eviction petition was filed on the grounds of wilful default from September, 1991 to February, 1992, sub-letting and also bona fide requirement. The respondents had taken a stand that the 1st respondent had obtained the demised premises about 30 years ago for carrying on business and the present rent is Rs. 200/-, exclusive of the electricity charges and the 1st respondent had never committed wilful default from the beginning and he has been paying the rents regularly up to august, 1991 and receipts also were passed and though the rent was tendered as usual in the month of September, 1991 on 10-9-1991, the landlord refused to receive the same and likewise the landlord failed to receive the rent form October, 1991 also when it was tendered by the 2nd respondent and hence the rents were sent through money order which also were refused. It was also averred that the 1st respondent had gone to see his relations residing in Gulf countries and he had left the country for the purpose of Haj pilgrimage and unfortunately he had sustained fracture in the house of his relatives and could not return to India for a long time and during his absence the 2nd respondent, being his brother, was looking after the business as per his instructions and it is totally false to state that he had committed wilful default and he had sub-let the premises. Unfortunately the landlord did not specify even the name of the bank to deposit the rents and hence the 1st respondent after complying with all the requirements under Section 8 of the Act had filed RC no. 326/92 on the file of III Additional Rent controller and after obtaining permission from the Court all the arrears commencing from 1-9-1991 have been deposited in Court. It was also averred that the 1st respondent had appointed 2nd respondent as his General power of Attorney and on the strength of the same the 2nd respondent was safeguarding the interests of the 1st respondent and in fact RC No. 326/92 on the file of the iii Additional Rent Controller was filed by the 2nd respondent in the interest GPA of the 1st respondent and previously also there was some problem and to maintain good relationship with the landlord the 1st respondent had enhanced some rent and started paying the rents regularly and hence the eviction petition is not a bona fide one. On behalf of the landlord, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. Pl to P4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, rws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. Rl to r4 were marked. The learned Rent Controller had discussed the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting as Point Nos. l and 2 and had arrived at a conclusion that the 1st and the 2nd respondents are liable to be evicted on these grounds. However, as far as Point no. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs. Rl to r4 were marked. The learned Rent Controller had discussed the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting as Point Nos. l and 2 and had arrived at a conclusion that the 1st and the 2nd respondents are liable to be evicted on these grounds. However, as far as Point no. 3 i. e. , bonafide requirement is concerned, it was not accepted and the respondents aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned rent Controller had preferred RA No. 119/ 95 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, city Small Causes Court at Hyderabad which was allowed on 27-12-1999 and aggrieved by the said judgment the landlord had preferred the present civil revision petition. ( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as "landlord", "tenant" and "2nd respondent". ( 4 ) SRI Ugle, the learned Counsel representing the landlord had contended that though the ground of bona fide requirement was rejected by the Rent Controller on careful appreciation of evidence the learned rent Controller held that the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting are sustainable and the tenant and the 2nd respondent are liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The learned Counsel also had pointed out several infirmities in the evidence of RW1, RW2 and RW3 and had contended that in fact there is no proof that the tenant is the brother of the 2nd respondent and the appellate authority had proceeded on the ground that it is an admitted fact that both the tenant and the 2nd respondent are brothers. The learned counsel also had commented about Ex. P2, the deed of G. P. A by the tenant in favour of the 2nd respondent. The learned Counsel had placed reliance on Bataullah v. K. Nisar ahmed, 2001 (2) DT (AP) 330, to the effect that when a well considered decision of the court of first instance had been reversed by the appellate authority and when there is overwhelming evidence in favour of the landlord-revision petitioner, it is a fit case for interference under Section 22 of the Act. ( 5 ) SRI Vilas Afzulpurkar, the learned counsel representing the tenant and the 2nd respondent had contended that in the pleading itself the relationship of the tenant and the 2nd respondent had been clearly pleaded and apart from it Ex. ( 5 ) SRI Vilas Afzulpurkar, the learned counsel representing the tenant and the 2nd respondent had contended that in the pleading itself the relationship of the tenant and the 2nd respondent had been clearly pleaded and apart from it Ex. P2, the power of attorney, also clearly establishes the relationship and hence it is futile on the part of the landlord to raise such a contention. The learned Counsel also had stated that the series of events clearly go to show that the tenant always has been conscious and more careful in payment of rents and deliberately the landlord had avoided receipt of rents from the brother of the tenanat and hence the ground of wilful default is not sustainable. The learned Counsel also had submitted that the ground of sub-letting also was not established since it is a case where the 2nd respondent - brother at the relevant time in the absence of the tenant was looking after the mulgi, which will not amount to sub-letting. The necessary ingredients required to prove the ground of sub-letting had not been established. The learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on P. Rajanna v. Smt. K. Lalitha Reddy, 1995 (3) ALT 789 and also Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh and another, 1999 (6) alt 13 (SC ). ( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel and perused the records. The jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is not in dispute. It is also a fact that the tenant had left to Gulf countries in the month of may, 1991 and he had returned only in the year 1993. It is also not the case of the landlord that nobody had tendered rent. It is his specific case that the tenant committed default in payment of rent from the month of September, 1991 to February, 1992. In the pleading itself the landlord stated that he did not accept the rents tendered by the 2nd respondent from the month of september, 1991. In the said circumstances, it is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and also the evidence of RWs. 1 to 3 and Exs. Pl to P3 and Exs. Rl to R4 that at any stretch of imagination this cannot be termed as wilful default. In the said circumstances, it is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and also the evidence of RWs. 1 to 3 and Exs. Pl to P3 and Exs. Rl to R4 that at any stretch of imagination this cannot be termed as wilful default. In fact, the circumstances under which the rent was tendered and the conduct of the landlord clearly goes to show that the intention of the landlord is to make the wilful default as a ground for throwing out the tenant. The appellate authority while discussing Point no. 1 i. e. , the ground of wilful default in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 had discussed all the aspects in detail and had arrived at a conclusion that there is no wilful default on the part of the tenant at all. The learned appellate authority had discussed about the oral and documentary evidence in detail, especially the evidence of RWs. 1 and 2 and also Ex. P2 in this regard. It is needless to mention that every default will not fall within the meaning of the expression "wilful default" and a default will not amount to wilful default unless it is a conscious and deliberate default committed by the tenant with supine indifference. In the light of this legal position also and on facts since the appellate authority after recording proper findings had arrived at a conclusion that the tenant had not committed any wilful default whatsoever. I am not inclined to disturb that finding of the appellate authority who had recorded the same on the strength of the evidence available on record. ( 7 ) NOW coming to the next question i. e. , whether the ground of sub-letting of the premises by tenant to the 2nd respondent is established, the evidence available on record is vague and it is not clear. Further, it is a case of the tenant leaving the country requesting his brother to look after his business during his absence. Further, it is a case of the tenant leaving the country requesting his brother to look after his business during his absence. In the decision referred (supra), it was held by the Apex court that it is settled position of law that to establish sub-letting the onus is on the landlord to prove through evidence that the other tenant was in exclusive possession of the property in question and that between the sub-tenant and the tenant was relationship of lessee and lessor and that the possession of the premises in question was parted with exclusively by the tenant in favour of the sub-tenant. In fact, the Apex Court after appreciating the facts in the said case had observed that the presence of the tenant s brother in the premises during his absence in the circumstances of the case i. e. , the tenant absconding as he was involved in a criminal case, will not amount to sub-letting of the premises to him. The expression "sublease" would mean an assignment of right of tenancy by the tenant or lessee in favour of a person other than the landlord. It is no doubt true that this expression "sub-lease" is not defined even in the Transfer of Property act, 1882. In Mineral Development Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 1373 , the apex Court while dealing with the aspect of sub-lease in the context of a mining lease had observed:"the term sub-lease , under-lease and derivative lease are used conveniently to indicate not only that the transfer is a lease but also that the transfer is not the owner of the property but is a lessee; but the transfer as between a lessee and a sub-lessee is nonetheless a lease provided it satisfies the definition of Section 105. We may add that chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with leases of immovable property has nowhere made any distinction between a lease and a sub-lease and all the provisions of that Chapter which apply to a lease also apply to a sub-lease". We may add that chapter V of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals with leases of immovable property has nowhere made any distinction between a lease and a sub-lease and all the provisions of that Chapter which apply to a lease also apply to a sub-lease". Hence, a sub-lease or a transfer of a lease for the purpose of Section 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the act also must satisfy the conditions of the lease within the meaning of Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and at any stretch of imagination in the present case, on facts, it cannot be said to be sub-letting. Here is a case where the tenant while leaving the country had requested his brother to look after the business and taking advantage of the circumstances, the landlord intended to create problems. In fact, the appellate authority had discussed all the aspects in all angles clearly and hence the findings recorded by the appellate authority on these factual aspects do not deserve any interference while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. No costs.