JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.:- Petitioner, hereinafter referred to as the landlord, filed an ejectment petition against respondents No.l and 2. Petitioners case as set up was that respondent No.l is a tenant in respect of the premises, a shop, situate in Ward No.2 at Chambaghat on Chambaghat-Basal road, known as Shayama Kaushals Shop Complex. Monthly rent of this shop was Rs. 110/excluding municipal tax and electricity charges. Two grounds were pleaded seeking ejectment of the respondents from the premises in question namely, non payment of rent since August, 1992 as also the premises having been let out by respondent No.l to respondent No.2 on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- per month without written consent of the landlord where the latter is running his business for the last eight months. 2. This claim of the landlord was contested and resisted by respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the tenant. According to him he is carrying on the business in the premises in question and respondent No.2 has nothing to do with it. Rather ejectment petition has been filed by the landlord in collusion with respondent No. 2, (hereinafter referred to as the sub tenant), who had nothing to do with the tenanted premises. He is a stranger and the petition has been filed with a view to seek eviction on a ground which was not available to the landlord. Thus, the plea of parting with possession was specifically denied. 3. Learned Rent Controller below framed following issues and allowed the petition on the ground of arrears of rent only. 1. Whether the respondent No.l has sublet the premises in question to respondent No. 2 without the written consent of the petitioner as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the respondent No. 1 is in arrears of rent as alleged? If so, to what extent? OPP 3. Whether the present petition has been filed in collusion with respondent No. 2 as alleged ? If so its effect? OPR 4. Relief. 4. Landlord felt aggrieved from the judgment of the Rent Controller below and preferred an appeal. The same has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority (2) Solan on 25.8.1999. Thus, while dismissing the Rent Appeal No. l-S/14 of 1996, Appellate Authority has upheld the order passed by the Rent Controller, Solan in Petition No.99/2 of 1993, dated 23.11.1996. 5. Relief. 4. Landlord felt aggrieved from the judgment of the Rent Controller below and preferred an appeal. The same has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority (2) Solan on 25.8.1999. Thus, while dismissing the Rent Appeal No. l-S/14 of 1996, Appellate Authority has upheld the order passed by the Rent Controller, Solan in Petition No.99/2 of 1993, dated 23.11.1996. 5. At the time of hearing of this petition learned Senior Counsel appearing for the landlord urged that so far ground on account of non payment of arrears is concerned, it is redundant. However, he forcefully urged that ground of subletting has been wrongly negatived by both the authorities below. According to him on the materials on record which have remained unrebutted because of no evidence having been led by the tenant the ejectment petition could not have been dismissed. As such he has prayed for allowing this revision thereby passing order of ejectment against the tenant as well as sub tenant. 6. In the context of present case it may be noted that landlord did not appear in the witness box. Rather her attorney, Shashikant appeared as PW-1 besides examining Sunil Kumar as PW 2 There is no evidence produced by the tenant. So far sub tenant is concerned, he was exparte before the authorities below and during the course of present proceedings he was ordered to be deleted from the array of respondents as per statement made on behalf of the landlord during the pendency of this revision petition. 7. On the other hand Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the tenant, submitted that merely because no evidence has been examined by his client will not by itself be a ground for the landlord to seek an order of ejectment. Reason being that unless case is proved to the hilt and a ground under the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act 1987 is made out no advantage can be derived for non production of evidence on the part of tenant. 8. Mr. Verma referred to the evidence examined by his client during the course of trial before the learned Rent Controller, Shashikant (PW-1) has stated that he is the attorney of his mother and according to him shop was sublet 8-9 months prior to filing of the eviction petition by Ram Lai to Sohan Lai who used to sit on the shop. Verma referred to the evidence examined by his client during the course of trial before the learned Rent Controller, Shashikant (PW-1) has stated that he is the attorney of his mother and according to him shop was sublet 8-9 months prior to filing of the eviction petition by Ram Lai to Sohan Lai who used to sit on the shop. Rental fixed between both of them was Rs.800/-. Tenant was running a Rehri. According to him Sohan Lal sub tenant had disclosed the rate of rental to the witness. Not only this, but he (sub tenant) wanted to retain the shop and for that purpose he asked the witness to enhance the rent. PW-1 further claimed that sub tenant held out to have paid one months advance rent to the tenant. However, premises were taken back by the tenant after throwing out the belongings of the sub tenant. In his cross examination witness has categorically stated that he came to know about the shop being let out on a monthly rent of Rs.800/- after the petition, as such this fact was not mentioned in the petition. This was somewhere in the year 1994. PW-2 is Sunil Kumar. According to him, his shop is adjacent to the premises in question. In between Ram Lal had given the shop to someone for running it who used to sit on the shop. Witness did not know the name of such person. During this period Ram Lai was running Rehri at a distance of 20/25 feet from the shop. This person worked in the shop for 7-8 months and then he left. In what capacity said person was running the shop, witness did not know. However, he belonged to the area of the tenant. In his cross examination he has stated that he had never seen the said person paying rent to Ram Lai tenant. He also feigned ignorance that the Rehri was of the wife of the tenant. This is the entire evidence on record of the landlord in this case. 9. While advancing the case of the landlord, learned Senior Counsel submitted that since on the material aspect of the ground of subletting no cross examination is directed against either PW-1 or PW- 2, therefore, it remains unchallenged. Thus, needs to be taken as proved and consequently ejectment petition needs to be allowed. 9. While advancing the case of the landlord, learned Senior Counsel submitted that since on the material aspect of the ground of subletting no cross examination is directed against either PW-1 or PW- 2, therefore, it remains unchallenged. Thus, needs to be taken as proved and consequently ejectment petition needs to be allowed. So far this legal proposition is concerned, there is no doubt that when statement of a witness on a particular aspect is not challenged in his cross examination, that part of his version needs to be taken as accepted unless there is some inherent lack or improbability in such a version. 10. With a view to test the veracity of a witness examined by a party a chance is allowed to opponent to cross examine such witness. It is thereafter only that his evidence is to be appreciated. This is well known rule of law of evidence. As such it is incumbent upon a party to put the witness examined against him so much of his case as it pertains to a particular witness. In the absence of there being any cross examination a court would be justified in presuming what has been stated by the witness is to be accepted. Where a witness does not speak truth and the opponent does not cross examine him so as to show that what is the correct position, the court has no option, but for accepting the version, of course subject to there being inherent improbability. 11. On this proposition of law Mr. Verma placed reliance in Bijai Ram Kanshi Ram & Anr. v. Jai Ram GangaRam &Anr. AIR 1955 Himachal Pradesh 57 Kansi Ram v. Jai Ram & Ors. AIR 1956 H.P. 4; M/s. Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. AIR 1958 Punjab 440; A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y. Derderian AIR 1961 Calcutta 359; Babulall Choukhani v. Caltex (India) Ltd. AIR 1967 Calcutta 205 Rama Nand & Ors. v. The State ILR 1974 H.P.509 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Thakur Dass and etc. etc. 1983 CRILJ. 1694. Since there cannot be any dispute with proposition of law, as such these authorities are not being elaborately referred to. Whether the ratio laid down by these decisions is applicable to the facts of the present case will be seen hereinafter. 12. etc. 1983 CRILJ. 1694. Since there cannot be any dispute with proposition of law, as such these authorities are not being elaborately referred to. Whether the ratio laid down by these decisions is applicable to the facts of the present case will be seen hereinafter. 12. In the context of subletting, it may also be observed that there cannot be any direct evidence of subletting as such a contract invariably is a secret arrangement between the tenant and the sub tenant regarding payment of rent as well as other terms and conditions. As such once there is acceptable evidence led by the landlord to show parting with possession for consideration, onus shifts upon the tenant to show as to how the person alleged to be sub tenant is in possession. A situation may be there where per force of circumstances some body else may be running the business in the absence of the tenant, say for example when he is in custody and is facing a trial, or when he is absconding to evade arrest that some one is carrying on the business during such absence of the tenant, this, in my considered view, will not tantamount to subletting. Thus every case has to be examined on its own facts. 13. In this behalf it may also be appropriate to observe that unless it is established on preponderance of evidence that tenant had finally called it a day and there was no animus reverend on his part, subletting is not to be presumed. Besides this, it is mixed question of fact and law that needs to be determined on appreciation of evidence in each case. 14. When present case is examined in the light what has been discussed hereinabove and for he reasons to be recorded hereinafter, no case of subletting is made out as was urged on behalf of the landlord. 15. Admittedly landlord has not stepped into witness box. Her attorney has appeared as PW-1. PW-1 cannot substituted for the party, i.e. the landlord i in the present case. His evidence is to be appreciated like any other witness. J Ejectment petition was presented before the learned Rent Controller on 20.9.1993. Paragraph 16 of the Eviction Petition was as under- "16. Admittedly landlord has not stepped into witness box. Her attorney has appeared as PW-1. PW-1 cannot substituted for the party, i.e. the landlord i in the present case. His evidence is to be appreciated like any other witness. J Ejectment petition was presented before the learned Rent Controller on 20.9.1993. Paragraph 16 of the Eviction Petition was as under- "16. Whether there are any sub tenant The respondent No. 1 has and if so, the date of such subletting given the shop in quest-accommodation sublet whether with or tion to respondent No.2 without the written consent of the land on further rent and has lord and the rent charged from the transferred the complete tenant. 16. When a reference is made to cross examination of PW-1, he has stated that he came to know about the rate of rent being Rs.800/- after the petition, as such it could not be mentioned in the petition. It was in the year 1994. This completely belies the claim of the landlord as mentioned in para 16 Supra that the premises have been sublet by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 Sohan Lai. So far PW-2 Sunil Kumar is concerned his statement is vague and uncertain. In this view of the matter there is no legal evidence so as to accept what was urged on behalf of the landlord regarding premises having been sublet by the tenant to sub tenant on a monthly rental of Rs.800/-. 17. Learned counsel on behalf of the landlord referred Raghbir Singh v. Resham Singh & Anr. 1998(2) RLR 612, and forcefully urged that the element of parting with possession for valuable consideration stands proved to the hilt, therefore, both the authorities below have erred in not allowing the ejectment petition. This is an argument raised simply to be rejected in the face of the evidence referred to hereinabove. 18. By referring to Shama Prashant Raje v. Ganpatrao & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3094, it was also submitted by the learned Senior counsel that jurisdiction of the High Court is not appellate, but is supervisory, and therefore, this court should correct the view of the authorities below by allowing the eviction petition. As according to him no reasonable man on the basis of the evidence could have dismissed the eviction petition. He further pointed out that evidence has been misconstructed and misread. As according to him no reasonable man on the basis of the evidence could have dismissed the eviction petition. He further pointed out that evidence has been misconstructed and misread. Again so far legal proposition is concerned, there is no dispute. However, on the facts and evidence as noted above, no case is made out to accept the plea of subletting having been established. 19. Whether evidence of PW-1 can be substituted in place of landlord, answer would be in the negative. For taking this view reliance is being placed on a decision of Honble Supreme Court in GopalSaran v. Satyanarayana 1989 (3) SCC 56. What was held in it because of non- appearance of the landlord in the affirmative while dealing with a case of subletting parting with possession of the roof of the tenanted premises, causing material alteration to the premises as also on the question of default of payment of rent, was as under.- "5. On the basis of the aforesaid, it was contended that it was the definite case of the defendant in examination-in-chief, that the Board belonged to him and that the defendant was carrying on his own business and that there was no dispute as to the same by the plaintiff. It may be mentioned that the plaintiff had not subjected himself to cross-examination in spite of the order of the court after the remand, therefore, it would not be safe to rely on the examination in chief recorded which was not subjected to cross-examination before the remand was made. If that is so, it will appear that there is no evidence of the plaintiff in respect of allegations in the plaint. This position appears established from the facts on record. When the plaintiff appeared for evidence in rebuttal he could have been cross- examined on these points. It was submitted that in rebuttal the plaintiff had stated only with regard to the default in payment of rent but the plaintiff had not chosen to support his plaint case, before the defendant went to the witness box. There was no question of cross examining the plaintiff travelling beyond the evidence of the plaintiff given in examination-in-chief and thereby giving an opportunity to make out a case in cross-examination. There was no question of cross examining the plaintiff travelling beyond the evidence of the plaintiff given in examination-in-chief and thereby giving an opportunity to make out a case in cross-examination. It, therefore, appears from the pleadings and the evidence that the respondent did not make out any case of the appellant parting with possession by putting up the hoarding. In examination-in-chief also he did not make out such a case and on the contrary his case was that it was the defendant-appellant who had put up the hoarding. The plaintiff did not allege that the defendant-appellant was not carrying on also advertising business. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that having refused to submit to cross-examination the plaintiff has made the evidence in examination-in-chief nonest. It was the case of the defendant that he was carrying on the business of advertisement by putting up the hoardings of different parties. The board was made by him, paintings and writings were also done by him and for putting the hoarding he charged from his customers. Therefore, it appears to us that there are no clear findings that anybody was given lease or anybody was given the right to put up the hoarding and there was parting of possession in favour of anyone else. It was, however, argued that even if the appellant had put the advertisement board hoarding he was earning a huge amount by the same and this was a factor which would indicate that there was parting of possession by him. It was, however, submitted on behalf of the appellant that when the shop had been let out to the defendant-appellant for carrying on business it was the right of the defendant-appellant to carry on the business. It was legally permissible to use the said shop room and also use the roof there and earn as much as could be done and as such it is not parting with possession." (See also Gurdev Singh v. Gulaboo & Ors. 2000(3) Shim. L.C. 285: 2000(2) Cur. L.J. (HP):52 lshwar Bhai C. Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera & Anr. 1992 (2) Current Civil Cases 171 (SC) and Kanakpaudi Bharathi & Anr. v. Authority under Section 50 of A. P. Shops and Establishment Act-cum- Labour Officer & Anr., 1993 (3) Current Civil Cases 302 (AP). 20. 2000(3) Shim. L.C. 285: 2000(2) Cur. L.J. (HP):52 lshwar Bhai C. Patel @ Bachu Bhai Patel v. Harihar Behera & Anr. 1992 (2) Current Civil Cases 171 (SC) and Kanakpaudi Bharathi & Anr. v. Authority under Section 50 of A. P. Shops and Establishment Act-cum- Labour Officer & Anr., 1993 (3) Current Civil Cases 302 (AP). 20. In Jagdish Prasad v. Smt. Angoori Devi AIR 1984 SC 1447, it was held that where eviction was sought on the ground of subletting, merely because a person other than the tenant in the shop, subletting cannot be presumed. Reason was that allegation had to be proved as a fact by landlord. While allowing the appeal of the tenant, it was held as under:- "Merely from the presence of a person other than the tenant in the shop subletting cannot be presumed As long as control over the premises is kept by the tenant and the business run in the premises is of the tenant, subletting flowing from the presence of a person other than the tenant in the shop cannot be assumed. The Act does not require the Court to assume a sub-tenancy merely from the fact of presence of an outsider Where, therefore, an application for eviction of tenant from a shop was based on the allegation that the premises had been sublet to a trading company, this allegation had to be proved as a fact by the landlord and merely on the basis of the photograph showing the presence of the son of the proprietor of that Company within the room, subletting could not be presumed." 21. In Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar 1990(2) SCC 331, in the context of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act ] c)50, it was held as under:- "5. Sub-letting means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of the third party and the said right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. Parting of the legal possession-means possession with the right to include and also a right to exclude others. Mere occupation is not sufficient to infer either sub-tenancy or parting with possession.- 22. Scope of interference by High Court under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Gyan Parkash v. Som Nath & Ors. Mere occupation is not sufficient to infer either sub-tenancy or parting with possession.- 22. Scope of interference by High Court under Section 24(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Gyan Parkash v. Som Nath & Ors. 1996 (1) RCR 342, and it was was held as under:- "10. After giving our anxious consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that in the facts of the case, the High Court had quite improperly exercised its jurisdiction for revision under Section 24(5) of the Rent Act. It appears to us that the trial Court had considered the case of payment of rent by the respondent No.3 by cheques but such payment has not been accepted by the trial Court as constituting creation of new tenancy in favour of respondent No. 3. The court of appeal has not made any specific discussion of such payment. As the judgment of the Appellate Authority is a judgment of affirmance, we do not think that any elaborate discussion on the said aspect was required. It appears to us that the being oblivious of the limited scope and ambit of Section 24(5) of the Rent Act has exercised the power of a court of appeal and having reappreciated the entire evidence come to a contrary finding. Such exercise as a court of appeal should not have been done by the High Court in the facts of the case." 23. What is the position of an attorney came up for consideration before the Rajasthan High Court in Ram Prasad v. Hari Narain & Ors. AIR 1998 Rajasthan 185 wherein it was held as under:- "2. This question arises in the following circumstances, (i) The plaintiff-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted a suit for injunction and possession of the property against the defendant non-petitioner (for short the defendants). The defendants files written statement and issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The case, therefore, was posted for recording the evidence of the plaintiff, (ii) The plaintiff, in the meanwhile, moved an application praying that his son Satya Narayan, being his general power-of-attorney holder, may be allowed to appear as witness on his behalf. The defendant contested the said application. The case, therefore, was posted for recording the evidence of the plaintiff, (ii) The plaintiff, in the meanwhile, moved an application praying that his son Satya Narayan, being his general power-of-attorney holder, may be allowed to appear as witness on his behalf. The defendant contested the said application. The learned trial Court vide its order dated November 15, 1996dismissed the said application. Hence this revision. "4. Rule 2 of Order 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus.-"Recognised agents- The recognised agents of parties by whom such appearance, applications and acts may be made or done." (a) persons holding powers-of-attorney authorising them to make and do such appearances applications and acts on behalf of such parties;" "5. Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides thus:-"All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind" "8. On the other hand Mr. Kanta Prasad Sharma learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on Shambhu Dutt Shastri v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 (2) WLN 713, where this Court (Honble Dinker Lai Mehta, J. as he then was) in para No.23 of the judgment propounded as under:-"A general power-of-attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party, but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party. He can only appear in his own capacity. No one can delegate the power to appear in witness-box on behalf of himself. To appear in witness-box is altogether a different act. A general power-of- attorney holder cannot be allowed to appear as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in the capacity of the plaintiff." 24. Applying the tests laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the present case as well as on the basis of the evidence examined by the landlord, findings concurrently recorded by the authorities below suffer from no illegality. Similarly no impropriety has been committed by the authorities below calling for interference in this revision petition. 25. No other point is urged. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion there is no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout. Cost of present proceedings is quantified at Rs.5,000/-.