Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. Chand Rani Sharma is the owner of shop No. 5615/1 Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt. This shop was let out by her to Surinder Kumar Bhasin at a rental of Rs. 92/- per month, besides enhanced tax. Notice was served upon him to pay enhanced tax under registered cover, which was duly received by him. She asked for his ejectment from that shop on grounds that Surinder Kumar Bhasin has sublet or transferred the tenancy rights of the shop to M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar and also that he has changed the user of the shop in question to L-2 vend and has parted with possession altogether to M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar. The shop had been tenanted by him for running the business of sale of books etc. He closed down the business of sale of books and stationery etc. and sublet the shop for running the business of liquor vending for one year and now he is running the business of selling toys etc. 2. Surinder Kumar Bhasin-respondent No. I contested this application. It was denied that he sublet this shop to M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar. In fact, he was in possession of the shop and also that he was running business in the shop with Sikandar Lal and Suresh Kumar, in partnership with them. To the same effect was the reply furnished by M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar. 3. Vide order dated 18.12.1999 this ejectment application was allowed by the learned Rent Controller and the respondents were ordered to be ejected with direction to them to hand over vacant possession of the shop to her within two months of 18.12.1999, in view of his findings that this shop was let out by her to Surinder Kumar Bhasin who sublet this shop further to M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar L-2 Vendors, who ran the business of sale of liquor in the shop with effect from April, 1987 to March, 1988 for one year. It was found that in firm M/s. Sikandar Lal Suresh Kumar, Surinder Kumar Bhasin was not a partner. In the business which was run for the sale of liquor in the shop, Surinder Kumar Bhasin had no concern. It was found that this shop was tenanted to Surinder Kumar Bhasin for the sale of stationery and sports goods etc. It was found that in firm M/s. Sikandar Lal Suresh Kumar, Surinder Kumar Bhasin was not a partner. In the business which was run for the sale of liquor in the shop, Surinder Kumar Bhasin had no concern. It was found that this shop was tenanted to Surinder Kumar Bhasin for the sale of stationery and sports goods etc. He closed down the business of sale of stationery and sports goods etc. and thus there was change of user of the shop in question. 4. Surinder Kumar Bhasin went in appeal, which was dismissed by learned Appellant Authority, Ambala. 5. Still not satisfied, Surinder Kumar Bhasim has come up in revision to this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are LRs/heirs of Smt. Chand Rani and have gone through the record. 7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence that Surinder Kumar Bhasin inducted M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar as his sub-tenant and that he had parted with possession altogether and that he had walked out of possession of the shop and inducted M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar in possession thereof. It was submitted that in fact he was very much in possession of the shop and carried on the business of sale of liquor as one of the partners with M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar. It was submitted that Surinder Kumar Bhasin son of late Sh. Raj Kumar Bhasin-tenant was a partner in firm M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar who carried on the business of sale of liquor for one year i.e. April, 1987 to March, 1988. Sikander Lal had 40% share, Suresh Kumar had 52% share while Surinder Kumar Bhasin had 8% share. Surinder Kumar Bhasin RW-6 stated that he carried on the business of sale of sports goods in the name of M/s Mini Sports. Simultaneously, the business of sale of liquor was also carried on in the shop by the firm M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that this shop was not used by Surinder Kumar Bhasin son of sate Sh. Raj Kumar Bhasin at all during the period 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988. Simultaneously, the business of sale of liquor was also carried on in the shop by the firm M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that this shop was not used by Surinder Kumar Bhasin son of sate Sh. Raj Kumar Bhasin at all during the period 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988. During this period, this shop was used for the sate of liquor by M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar in which Surinder Kumar Bhasin was not a partner. It was submitted that the partnership was only a camouflage in order to conceal the factum of sub-tenancy. It was submitted that if this partnership had been genuine, they would have got the partnership deed registered. They would have got the partnership deed registered with the Registrar, of Firms and Societies. They would have got the partners registered with the Registrar of Firms and Societies. It was submitted that if Surinder Kumar Bhasin had really been a partner in the liquor business with Sikander Lal and Suresh Kumar, he would have shown the profits earned by him in his income tax return. 9. It was submitted that tenant had got summoned the record from the Excise and Taxation and Department of the State of Haryana and the documents clearly show that the licence for L-2 vend was given to M/s Sikander Suresh Kumar in which there were five partners in "M/s Sikander Suresh Kumar and Company" namely; Sikander Lal son of Bahadur Chand, Kuldip Singh son of Bawa Singh, Suresh Kumar son of Kesho Ram, Surinder Kumar son of Kesho Ram and Chand Ram son of Sahib Ditta Mal. 10. It was submitted that it is thus proved that in this shop business was carried on during the period 4.4.1987 to 31.3.1988 by M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar in which Surinder Kumar Bhasin son of late Sh. Raj Kumar was not a partner, instead Sikander Lal etc. the aforesaid persons were the partners. It was submitted that if liquor business was being carried in this shop by M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar and Company during that period, how could the business of sale of stationery and sports goods take place. Raj Kumar was not a partner, instead Sikander Lal etc. the aforesaid persons were the partners. It was submitted that if liquor business was being carried in this shop by M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar and Company during that period, how could the business of sale of stationery and sports goods take place. It was submitted that it is not believable that liquor business could be carried on along with the business of stationery and sports goods because these two businesses are altogether different businesses, having no nexus with each other. 11. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if Surinder Kumar Bhasin had not carried on the business of sale of stationery and sports goods during the year, 1987/1988, he would not have filed sales tax returns. 12. It would bear repetition how could the business of sale of stationery and sports goods take place by Surinder Kumar Bhasin s/o Sh. Raj Kumar Bhasin if he was carrying on the business of sale of liquor as partner with M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar. These two businesses are different businesses. Liquor vend had been licensed by Sikander Lal son of Bahadur Chand, Kuldip Singh son of Bawa Singh, Suresh Kumar son of Kesho Ram, Surinder Kumar son of Kesho Ram and Chand Ram son Sahib Ditta Mal for the year, 1987-1988. If Surinder Kumar son of Raj Kumar Bhasin was not one of the licensees before Excise and Taxation Department, Ambala at the time when liquor vend licence was taken, the only thing that can be felt is that partnership deed attested by the Notary Public was manipulated afterwards, in which Surinder Kumar Bhasin was shown partner. 13. It is thus clear that M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar and Company remained in possession of the shop for the period 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988 as sub-lessee. There is no evidence that during that period, Sikander Lal Bhasin son of late Sh. Raj Kumar Bhasin was a partner in that business or that he carried on the business of the sale of stationery and sports goods in the shop alongwith the business of sale of liquor being carried on by M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar and Company. Retaining legal possession of the demised premises by the tenant is a necessary condition to repel the plea of sub-letting. Retaining legal possession of the demised premises by the tenant is a necessary condition to repel the plea of sub-letting. In this case, there is no evidence that legal possession was with Surinder Kumar Bhasin s/o Raj Kumar Bhasin. The two main ingredients of sub-letting are that the premises should be in exclusive possession of sub-tenant and secondly the possession should have been given for a valuable consideration. In this case, exclusive possession was with M/s Sik-hander Lal Suresh Kumar and Company. It is not shown that Surinder Kumar Bhasin was related to any of the partners so that it could be inferred that he may not have been charging rent. In case of sub-letting the test is whether the so-called sub-tenant is in exclusive possession and the tenant has no control what-ever so far as possession is concerned and has walked out altogether so far as possession is concerned. 14. It was held in Dev Kumar (died) through LRs. v. Smt. Swaran Lata and Ors., (1996-2) 113 P.L.R. 391 that mere presence of a person other than the tenant in the shop does not prove a case of sub-letting as long as control over the premises is kept by the tenant. In order to construe sub-letting, there must be parting of legal possession and possession of the lessee and parting of possession means "possession with the right to include and also the right to exclude others". 15. In Summat Parshad Jain and Ors. v. Murari Lal Jain and Anr., (2000-2)125 P.L.R. 212 it was held that where tenant is a partner of firm in control and possession of demised premises, duly registered with the Income Tax Department and paying income tax as partner of the registered firm, it would not be said mere is sub-letting of the premises. 16. In this case there is sub-letting when Surinder Kumar Bhasin son of late Sh. Raj Kumar Bhasin is not shown to have been partner in M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar in its liquor business nor is it shown that Surinder Kumar Bhasin son of late Sh. Raj Kumar Bhasin carried on the business of sale of stationery and sports goods in the shop when simultaneously the business of sale of liquor was taking place by M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar and Company. Sub-letting is thus proved. 17. There is no change of user. Raj Kumar Bhasin carried on the business of sale of stationery and sports goods in the shop when simultaneously the business of sale of liquor was taking place by M/s Sikander Lal Suresh Kumar and Company. Sub-letting is thus proved. 17. There is no change of user. If the shop was let out for the sale of stationery and sports goods and that business was abandoned and the sale of liquor business was commenced because that change of user which will give right to the landlord to eject the tenant should be one which involves impairment in the value and utility of the demised premises. In Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 670 (S.C.). Honble the Supreme Court held that where the shop was let out for the sale of English liquor and the tenant started the business of general merchandise, no change of user is involved when there is no impairment in the value and utility of the demised premises. 18. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that this revision petition is found to be without merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Petitioner is, however, allowed three months time to vacate the shop and put Smt. Veena and others LRs/heirs of late Chand Rani in vacant possession thereof. No order at to costs.