Judgment V.K.Bali, J. 1. This revision has been directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority dismissing the petition filed by petitioner/landlords under Section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking eviction of the respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting the premises in dispute. On the crucial issue of sub-letting, which is the only issue passed into service during the course of arguments before me, learned Appellate Authority observed as follows :- "17. There appeared to be absolutely no aberration in the approach of the learned Rent Controller in the matter of assessment of evaluation of the totality of circumstances on record. It was rightly remarked by the learned Rent Controller that no probative value could be attached to writing Ex. A-1 pressed into service by the appellant as trump-card. Even from a cursory glance over that writing, it was quite manifest that was a valueless piece of evidence. It is not at all conceivable as to how some such writing on a loose sheet of plain paper stately made by Ram Saran AW-1 could be regarded as a document evidencing the creation of tenancy in favour of a person alleged to be the executant thereof. Neither the alleged executant nor any other person who might have witnessed the execution thereof has been put in the witness box. The bald statement of Ram Saran AW-1 could not be attached any credence. It was conceded by the scribe witness that no rent was ever paid by Bhola Ram to the landlords in his presence and no objection was ever raised by the landlords to the occupation of the premises by Data Ram, who had admittedly been carrying on business therein for the last about 9 or 10 years. The manner in which the landlords happened to make some interpolations in that writing regarding payment of rent spoke volumes of tendentions nature of that evidence. Obviously, the whole thing was merely a sham paper transaction manoeuvred with the avowed object of supporting the plea of tenancy in favour of some persons other than Data Ram respondent, who had evidently been carrying on business over there since the year 1962. 18. Obviously, the whole thing was merely a sham paper transaction manoeuvred with the avowed object of supporting the plea of tenancy in favour of some persons other than Data Ram respondent, who had evidently been carrying on business over there since the year 1962. 18. There was not a scintilla of circumstances on record from which it could legitimately be deduced that Bhola Ram respondent had carried on business in the disputed shop at any point of time. No evidence, whatsoever, has been directed by the landlord in that behalf. The self-serving statement of Radha Raman, AW-3, carried little conviction. That was too nebulous to be acted upon. Concededly, he had never objected to the possession of Data Ram over the premises for such a long period. If the tenant inducted by him (AW3) had surrendered possession in favour of Data Ram after about one and half years of the creation of tenancy in the year 1962, then he (landlord) would not have remained a silent spectator. He must have raised a lot of hue and cry. No move was made by the landlords even for the recovery of rent when the tenant was statedly in arrears thereof since 10.4.1966. 19. The deposition of Nand Lal AW-2 also could not, in any way, espouse the cause of landlords. Admittedly, the shop was not taken on rent by Bhola Ram in his presence. He also went on to state that Data Ram had not taken the shop from Bhola Ram in his presence and that for the last over 10/12 years, Bhola Ram had been carrying on business in another shop. 20. The entries in house tax assessment recorded Ex. A-6 or the admission made by Jai Narain RW-3 also could not in any way advance the plea of landlords. What at best could be inferred therefrom was that Bhola Ram had been in occupation of the residential portion on the first floor of the building and not the demised shop property. 21. The learned Rent Controller had rightly observed that no tenant would risk eviction by creating subtenancy just for a nominal gain. According to the appellants, the tenancy in favour of Bhola Ram was created at the rate of Rs. 336/- per annum and he had sublet the same at the rate of Rs. 350/- per annum. That plea was unacceptable on the face of it. 22. According to the appellants, the tenancy in favour of Bhola Ram was created at the rate of Rs. 336/- per annum and he had sublet the same at the rate of Rs. 350/- per annum. That plea was unacceptable on the face of it. 22. The learned Rent Controller had rightly highlighted the voluminous documentary evidence in the shape of record proved by PW-1 Bhim Sain, an official of the market committee, Jai Narain RW-2 a clerk of the Notified Area Committee, Om Parkash, PW-5 an employee of Haryana State Electricity Board, which unmistakably pointed to an inference that Data Ram had been carrying on business in the demised premises since the year 1962. Application dated 3.11.1962 Ex. R-12 moved by Data Ram for securing a licence from the market committee went a long way to substantiate his plea that the disputed shop has been in his possession since 22.10.1962. If Data Ram had not been the direct tenant, then he would not have secured an electric connection and licence etc. in his own name in order to create evidence against him. I fully concur with the clear and forthright finding arrived at by the learned Rent Controller as well as reasoning advanced in support thereof that the premises were originally let out in favour of Data Ram and the plea of subtenancy raised by the appellants was without any substance. 23. Some additions or over-writings in the record of house tax or the entries in books of accounts etc. were quite inconsequential and insignificant. There could be no dispute with one bold inference that Data Ram had been in occupation of the demised premises since the year 1962. 24. The discrepancy on the point of year of occupation of that shop pleaded by Data Ram was more apparent than real. As he had asserted in reply Ex. R-1 dated 4.11.1971, to the notice dated 11.10.1971, Ex. R-2 served on him by the landlords that he had been in occupation of the demised premises for the last about nine years, so he (Data Ram) also asserted in the reply filed by him in the Court in the year 1973 that the shop had been in his occupation for the last nine years. He had at the earliest possible stage taken a categorical stand that his occupation over that property had been since the year 1962." 2. All that Mr. He had at the earliest possible stage taken a categorical stand that his occupation over that property had been since the year 1962." 2. All that Mr. Punia, learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this revision could urge was that the appellate authority did not examine Ex. A-8 which tilts the balance in favour of the petitioners. I am afraid, this contention at this stage cannot be permitted to be raised. Ex. A-8 had not been pressed into service in either of the Courts below to seek eviction of the respondents. That apart, over-whelming evidence discussed by the courts below would clearly point to the fact that the so-called sub-tenant came to occupy the premises in dispute in any case only after one and half years from the commencement of the tenancy and for so many years, no objection to his tenancy was raised by the petitioners. 3. Finding no merit in this petition, I dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.