Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1462 (PNJ)

Vidya Wanti v. Banarsi Dass

2003-10-22

G.S.SINGHVI

body2003
Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short, the Act) for setting aside order dated 1.8.1984 passed by the Appellate Authority, Ferozepur constituted under the Act (hereinafter described as the Appellate Authority) in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 26-R-1983 vide which it set aside order dated 15.4.1983 passed by Rent Controller, Ferozepur for eviction of the respondents. The facts:- 2. The petitioners filed an application before Rent Controller, Ferozepur under Section 13 of the Act for ejectment of the respondents from Shop No. 1285 situated in Main Chowk, Jallalabad on the ground of non-payment of rent from 1.7.1977 to 31.5.1981 at the rate of Rs. 42.50 and house tax at the rate of 15% per annum and subletting of the tenanted premises by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 without their consent. In their written statement, the respondents admitted that the shop in question had been rented out to respondent No. 1 on monthly rent of Rs. 42.50 but denied the allegation of subletting by asserting that they are real brothers and have joined business right from the inception of tenancy; that respondent No. 1 had never parted with the possession of the shop in dispute and that he is still in possession of the same and is running the business along with his brother (respondent No. 2). They tendered the arrears of rent on the first date of hearing which was accepted by the petitioners under protest. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues:- " 1. Whether the respondent No. 1 has sublet the shop in dispute to respondent No. 2 without the written or oral permission of the applicant? OPA 2. Whether the respondent is liable to pay house tax at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum? OPA 3. Whether the tender made by the respondent is valid? OPR 4. Relief. 4. The petitioners examined Ravi Kumar (AW1), Banarsi Dass (AW2), Kharaiti Lal (AW3), Kulwant Rai (AW4), Gian Chand (AW5), Gian Chand (AW6), Sardari Lal (AW7), Kartar Singh (AW8) and Pr:in Chand (AW9). The respondents examined Amrik Singh (RW1), Kewal Krishan (RW2), Amar Singh (RW3), Krishan Lal (RW4), Banarsi Dass (RW5) and Prem Kumar (RW6). The parties also produced documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. 5. The respondents examined Amrik Singh (RW1), Kewal Krishan (RW2), Amar Singh (RW3), Krishan Lal (RW4), Banarsi Dass (RW5) and Prem Kumar (RW6). The parties also produced documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. 5. On an evaluation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the Rent Controller decided issue No. 1 in favour of the petitioners and on that basis, he passed order dated 15.4.1983 for eviction of the respondents. The appeal filed by them was allowed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 1.8.1984. It held that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of subletting was legally unsustainable, in-as-much as, the landlord held failed to produce any evidence to prove that respondent No. 1 had parted with the possession of the shop or that respondent No. 2 was in exclusive possession thereof. 6. Mrs. Harsh Rekha, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of sub-letting of the demised shop by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 was based on a correct appreciation of evidence produced by the parties and the Appellate Authority committed a grave illegality by up-setting the same. She further argued that once the petitioners had succeeded in proving that respondent No. 2 was in possession of the demised shop, the onus lay upon the respondents to prove that there was no sub-letting. Learned counsel took me through the oral as well as documentary evidence to show that shop was let out to respondent No. 1, who was doing business of selling stamps in the Sub Tehsil and respondent No. 2 was doing business of repairing stoves in the demised shop and argued that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller that respondent No. 1 had parted with the possession did not call for interference by the Appellate Authority. In support of her argument, Mrs. Harsh Rekha relied on Ram Chander v. Smt. Amar Devi, 1980(2) All India Rent Control Journal (P&H) 221 : Karnail Singh v. Anirudh Parkash Kapil of Chandigarh, 1984 Haryana Rent Reporter (P&H) 546 : Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Manadhir Chandra Dutt, 1988 Haryana Rent Reporter (S.C.) 199 : Lal Singh v. Ashok Kumar, 1992(2) Rent Control Reporter 454: Santosh Devi and Ors. v. Vir Chand, (1996-1)112 P.L.R. 459: Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 1998(1) Rent Law Reporter (S.C.) 137 and Shri Sardari Lal v. Shri Hari Kishan and Ors., (1999-3)123 Punjab Law Reporter (P&H) 371. 7. Shri Sandeep Khunger, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order and argued that the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority on the issue of sub-letting does not call for interference by this Court under Section 15(5) of the Act because no evidence was produced by the petitioners to prove that respondent No. 1 had parted with the possession of the demised shop or that respondent No. 2 was in exclusive possession thereof. He submitted that the evidence produced by the petitioners, at the best, revealed that respondent No. 2 was doing business of repairing stoves in the shop and argued that this cannot lead to an inference that respondent No. 1 had sub-let the shop to respondent No. 2. In support of his arguments, Shri Khunger relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1362. 8. Before dealing with the arguments of the learned counsel, I deem it proper to notice some of the judicial precedents on the scope of revisional power of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act. 9. In Ram Dass v. Ishwar Chander and Ors., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1422, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant against the order of this Court reversing the judgment of the Appellate Authority and restoring the order passed by the Rent Controller for his eviction. Their Lordships referred to Section 15(5) of the Act and observed:- "Section 15(5) of the Act enables the High Court to satisfy itself as to the "legality and propriety" of the order under revision, which is, quite obviously, a much wider jurisdiction. That jurisdiction enables the court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also, though the revisional court is not "a second court of first appeal". 10. In Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. That jurisdiction enables the court of revision, in appropriate cases, to examine the correctness of the findings of facts also, though the revisional court is not "a second court of first appeal". 10. In Smt. Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. S. Chokosiri and Co., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1845, their Lordships of the Supreme Court reversed the order passed by this Court vide which the order of eviction passed against the respondent was set aside and observed: "When the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are supportable on the evidence on record, the revisional Court must be reluctant to embark upon an independent reassessment of the evidence and to supplant a conclusion of its own, so long as the evidence on record admitted and supported the one reached by the Courts below." 11. In Dev Kumar (Died) through LRs. v. Smt. Swaran Lata and Ors." (1996-2)113 P.L.R, 391 (S.C.), their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to some of the earlier judgments and held:- "In our considered opinion having regard to the aforementioned decisions of this Court laying down the parameters of the High Courts jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act it is neither possible to accept the narrow construction put by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant nor the wide construction put by the learned counsel for the respondents. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act, therefore, would entitle the Court to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion of the Appellate Authority and is thus much wider than the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But it has to be exercised subject to the well known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an Appellate jurisdiction. This being the position, unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate authority an unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come, the High Court will not interfere with the same, " 12. This being the position, unless there is a perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence by the Appellate authority an unless the Appellate Authority has arrived at a conclusion which on the materials, no reasonable man can come, the High Court will not interfere with the same, " 12. In Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh and Anr., A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3087, the Supreme Court delineated the scope of revisional power of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act in the following words:- "The Sub-section (5) empowers the High Court either on application or in its own motion to call for an examination of the record for the purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of such orders or proceedings, In view of the above language of Sub-section (5) we find that the High Court while exercising powers under Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act has got the powers to satisfy itself as to whether the question of subletting which is a question of law was properly decided by the Courts below." 13. In Lachhman Dass v. Santokh Singh, (1995-3)111 P.L.R. 276 (S.C.), the Supreme Court considered the scope of revisional power of the High Court under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 which is pari materia to Section 15(5) of the Act and observed:- "....That being so the two jurisdictions - one under an appeal and the other under revision cannot be said to be one and the same but distinct and different in the ambit and scope. Precisely stated an appeal is a continuation of a suit of proceedings wherein the entire proceedings are again left open for consideration by the appellate authorities which has the power to review the entire evidence subject, of course, to the prescribed statutory limitations. But in the case of revision whatever powers the revisional authority may have it has no power to reassess and reappreciate the evidence unless the statute expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is implicit in the concept of revision. In this view of the matter we are supported by the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abullah and Co., A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1585" (Under lining is mine) 14. In Molar Mal (dead) through LRs. That limitation is implicit in the concept of revision. In this view of the matter we are supported by the decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abullah and Co., A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 1585" (Under lining is mine) 14. In Molar Mal (dead) through LRs. v. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd., A.I.R, 2000 S.C. 1261; the ambit and scope of powers of the High Court under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Act was again considered and it was held, that "under Sub-section (6) of Section 15, the High Court, as a revisional authority, has the power to call for and ex amine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to legality and propriety of such order and is entitled to pass such order as it may deem fit. The power vested in the High Court under this provision of law is much wider than the power conferred on the High Court under Section 115 of the C.P.C. In the process of satisfying itself as to the legality and propriety of the impugned order, the High Court can, in a given case, go into the findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below and, if found necessary, reverse such a finding of fact, Of course, this Court has in many cases cautioned that this power is not to be used as a revisional Court in a routine manner but to be used only when the revisional Court comes to the conclusion that the last Court of fact has arrived at a conclusion which is perverse or is not possible to be accepted on the materials placed before it, In other words, if the High Court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the first Appellate Court is based on no evidence, then in a given case, it is open to the High Court to interfere with such finding of fact." 14. The ratio of the propositions laid down in the above noted decisions is that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act is much wider than its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the same has to be exercised subject to well known limitations inherent in all revisional jurisdictions and cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. In other words, the High Court can, in exercise of its power under Section 15(5), call for and examine the records relating to any order passed or proceedings taken under the Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such order or proceedings and interfere with the same if it is convinced that the Rent Controller and/or the Appellate Authority has committed any jurisdictional error or exercised jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity or the finding/conclusion recorded in the impugned order is perverse or is such which a reasonable man could have not recorded in the facts and circumstances of the particular case. However, the High Court cannot interfere with the findings/conclusion recorded by the Rent Controller and/or the Appellate Authority simply because on a re-evaluation of the evidence, it forms a different opinion on the particular issue. 15. At this stage, it is apposite to observe that in a petition filed for eviction of the tenant on the ground of sub-letting, the landlord has to prove that, (a) the alleged subtenant is in exclusive possession of the whole or part of the tenanted premises: (b) that the tenant has parted with the legal possession of the premises; and (c) such parting with possession is for some consideration. In Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpreted Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 which is pari materia to Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act and observed:- "It is well settled that parting with possession meant giving possession to persons other than those to whom possession had been given by the lease and the parting with possession must have been by the tenant: user by other person is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself, or in other words there must be vesting of possession by the tenant in another person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession. So long as the tenant retains the right to possession there is no parting with possession in terms of Clause (b) of Section 14(1)." 17: In the light of the above, I shall now consider whether the Appellate Authority committed a grave illegality by inter-fearing with the finding of fact reached by the Rent Controller on the issue of sub-letting. So long as the tenant retains the right to possession there is no parting with possession in terms of Clause (b) of Section 14(1)." 17: In the light of the above, I shall now consider whether the Appellate Authority committed a grave illegality by inter-fearing with the finding of fact reached by the Rent Controller on the issue of sub-letting. A careful reading of the order of the Rent Controller shows that he accepted the plea set up by the petitioners by placing reliance on the following pieces of evidence:- (i) Photographs Exhibits A4 and A5 pf the shop in dispute which were taken by AW1-Ravi Kumar. (ii) The board affixed on the shop with the inscription "Prem Di Hatti". (iii) The survey conducted by the Income Tax Authorities. (iv) Exhibit All in which Prem Kumar is said to have shown himself as sole proprietor of the shop. (v) The statements of witnesses of the petitioners, who deposed that respondent No. 2 was doing business of repairing stoves in the shop in dispute. 16. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding recorded by the Rent Controller by assigning the following reasons:- (a) The landlord had not adduced any evidence to show that respondent No. 1 had parted with-the possession of the shop in dispute in favour of respondent No. 2 or that the latter was in exclusive possession thereof. (b) The mere fact that respondent No. 2 was doing business of repairing stoves in the shop and the board with the inscription "Prem Di Hatti was fixed in front of the shop were not sufficient to prove that respondent No. 2 was having control over the shop to the exclusion of respondent No. 1. 17. The Appellate Authority also referred to the statement of Income Tax Inspector-Sardari Lal, who had conducted survey of the shop and before whom respondent No. 2 is said to have stated that he was the sole proprietor of the shop in dispute and observed that this, by itself, was not sufficient to prove that respondent No. 1 had parted with the possession in favour of respondent No. 2. The Appellate Authority observed that normally when such Inspector visits the business premises, then whosoever present at the shop, says that he is running the shop. The Appellate Authority observed that normally when such Inspector visits the business premises, then whosoever present at the shop, says that he is running the shop. The Appellate Authority analysed the entire evidence produced by both the parties and held:- "In the case of sub-letting, the pertinent thing to be proved on the record is that the original tenant has parted with the possession permanently for a valuable consideration. As earlier stated, there is no evidence on record worth the name to show that Banarsi Das has parted with the possession of the shop in dispute in favour of his brother Prem Kumar and he is exclusively running the business independently from his brother Banarsi Dass. The landlord has produced a number of witnesses namely AW1-Ravi Kumar photographer who has proved the Photographs Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 with their negatives taken up of the shop in dispute. AW2 is Banarsi Das who has produced the register of house tax and proved the entries of copies of which are Ex.A6 to Ex.A8. AW3 is Kharaiti Lal. According to his statement. Prem Kumar works at the shop and Banarsi Das as a stamp vendor. He has proved stamp paper Ex.A7, purchased by him from Banarsi Das. AW4 is Kulwant Rai who has prepared the site plan Ex.A10. AW5 is Gian Chand who has brought the Survey Register. AW7 is Sardari Lal who has proved the document Ex.All where in Prem Kumar admitted that he is running the business of stove repairs at the shop in dispute. AW8 is Kartar Singh who has proved application submitted by the two brothers Banarsi Das and Prem Kumar separately for issuing them the ration cards. AW9 is Prem Kumar himself. This evidence produced by the landlord does not prove conclusively that Banarsi Das has parted with the possession of the shop in dispute and has given the same on rent to Prem Kumar for running the business of stove repairs. So far as the evidence of Ravi Kumar is concerned, no doubt photographs depict that a board is hanging where it is written Prem Di Hatti. That by itself is no evidence to prove that Prem Kumar is having a separate business and has taken the shop on rent from Banarsi Das. So far as the evidence of Ravi Kumar is concerned, no doubt photographs depict that a board is hanging where it is written Prem Di Hatti. That by itself is no evidence to prove that Prem Kumar is having a separate business and has taken the shop on rent from Banarsi Das. Much stress has been laid on the statement of Sardari Lal who is the Income Tax Inspector and during his Survey report, Prem Kumar has admitted that he is the sole proprietor of the shop in dispute and he has proved the document Ex.A11 on the record. This by itself is also no ground to hold that Banarsi Das has parted with the possession for valuable consideration in favour of Prem Kumar. Normally when such Inspectors visit the business Premises, then whosoever is present at that time says that he is running the shop in dispute. Apart from this, there is not an iota of evidence to prove that Banarsi Das has parted away with the possession of the shop in question in favour of his real brother Prem Kumar or he has sublet the same to him. On the other hand, the evidence produced by the appellants is of very near neighbourers: namely Kewal Krishan (RW2), Amar Singh (RW3) and Krishan Lal (RW4). All these witnesses have their shops just opposite the shop in dispute and they categorically stated on oath that they have been seeing both the brothers Prem Kumar and Banarsi Das sitting at the shop in dispute and carrying on the business jointly. They are not in any way inimical towards the landlord or friendly with the appellants. Their evidence is conclusive to the effect that for the last 16 years, this shop is being run by Banarsi Das and thereafter by Banarsi Das and his brother Prem Kumar. This shop was taken on rent by Banarsi Das about 30 years back and after the death of Banarsi Dass father, his brother Prem Kumar started working with him. They had a joint business. So, where the business is joint one, there is no question of sub-letting. In order to prove sub-letting it is to prove on record that Banarsi Das has parted with the possession of the shop in dispute in favour of Prem Kumar for a valuable consideration. They had a joint business. So, where the business is joint one, there is no question of sub-letting. In order to prove sub-letting it is to prove on record that Banarsi Das has parted with the possession of the shop in dispute in favour of Prem Kumar for a valuable consideration. So, for a landlord to succeed, some kind of contractual relationship between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant must be established. So, where a brother has alleged that his other brother is sitting with him or to run a joint business, that by itself would not be a ground to hold that he has sub-let the premises. The relationship between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant is such which could go a long way to show that they could run joint business. 18. In my opinion, the Appellate Authority did not commit any jurisdictional error by reversing the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of sub-letting because the latter did not direct his attention to the crucial issue of parting with possession by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2. Moreover, the Rent Controller did not consider the evidence produced by the respondents that respondent No. 2 was not in exclusive possession of the shop. 19. Even on an independent evaluation of evidence, I am convinced that the petitioners failed to prove the sub-letting of the disputed shop by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. The evidence produced by them does shows that respondent No. 2 is doing business of repairing stoves in the shop in dispute, but there is nothing therein from which it can be inferred that respondent No. 1 had left control over the shop or had given exclusive possession thereof to respondent No. 2. Thus, both the ingredients necessary for proving sub letting of the demised shop are missing in the present case. In his statement, Ravi Kumar (AW1) simply stated that he had taken snaps of the shop and produced the negative as well as developed photographs in the Court. Banarsi Dass (AW2) House Tax Clerk of Municipal Committee, Jallalabad produced house tax assessment registers Exhibits A6 to A8. In his examination-in-chief, Kharaiti Lal (AW3) stated that he had seen respondent No. 2 working in the shop. Banarsi Dass (AW2) House Tax Clerk of Municipal Committee, Jallalabad produced house tax assessment registers Exhibits A6 to A8. In his examination-in-chief, Kharaiti Lal (AW3) stated that he had seen respondent No. 2 working in the shop. In the same breath, he stated that he had seen respondent No. 1 working in the shop and that he was working as stamp vendor in Sub Tehsil premises at Jallalabad. In the cross-examination, he admitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers, but gave out that they are working separately. Kulwant Rai (AW4) produced site plan Exhibit A10 allegedly prepared by him at the instance of Prem Kumar, In cross-examination, he stated that about 20/25 years back, father of respondent No. 1 used to work at the shop in dispute. Thereafter, Aaishi Lal and respondent No. l, who are real brothers, used to work in the shop. Aaishi Lal died 5/6 years back. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 alone started business of general merchandise in the shop and at that time, respondent No. 2 was not working with him. He further stated that at the time of preparing the plan, he had seen respondent No. 2. Gyan Chand (AW5), who was then working as U.D.C. in Income Tax Officer, Abohar, deposed that a survey was conducted by Sardari Lal-Inspector at the shop in the name of "Prem D1 Hatti" situated at Railway Road, Jallalabad. He also produced the survey report, Sardari Lal (AW7) stated that he had conducted survey of the shop whose sole proprietor is respondent No. 2 and he got the signatures of the said respondent on the survey proforma (Exhibit A11). In the cross-examination, he stated that he does not knew respondent No. 2 personally and cannot identify him. Kartar Singh (AW8), who was then working as Sub Inspector. Food and Supplies, Jallalabad, stated that he had scrutinised the applications made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of ration cards. In cross-examination, he stated that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are living in one house. Prem Chand (AW9) deposed that respondent No. 1 has never sat on the demised premises and he and respondent No. 2 are separate from each other and further that respondent No. 2 is exclusive owner of the business which he is running in the demised shop. In cross-examination, he admitted that respondent Nos. Prem Chand (AW9) deposed that respondent No. 1 has never sat on the demised premises and he and respondent No. 2 are separate from each other and further that respondent No. 2 is exclusive owner of the business which he is running in the demised shop. In cross-examination, he admitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers and both of them reside in the same house, though in different portions. He expressed his ignorance about their partition. He denied the suggestion that both the brothers were working jointly. Amrik Singh (RW1), who was then working as Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, produced the register containing the particulars of stamp vendor licences issued to various persons including respondent No. 2. He stated that respondent No. 2 was issued licence on 4.8.1982, but showed his ignorance about the date of licence of respondent No. 1. RW2 Kewal Krishan, RW3 Amar Singh and RW4-Krishan Lal, who are doing business in other shops situated in the same Bazar, deposed that both the respondents are running their business in the shop in dispute and respondent No. 1 had neither left the shop nor gave it to some body else. In cross-examination, they stated that both the brothers are living together. In his deposition, respondent No. 1 categorically denied that he had sub-let the shop to respondent No. 2 and asserted that both of them were doing joint business. Respondent No. 3 also deposed that he and respondent No. 1 were doing joint business and the shop had not been sub-let to him. He denied having told the income tax people that he was the sole proprietor of the shop. 20. In my view, the evidence produced by the petitioners did not establish that respondent No. 1 had parted with possession of the shop in dispute or that respondent No. 2 was in its exclusive possession. Thus, the conclusion recorded by the Appellate Authority cannot be termed as perverse. 21. The judgments relied upon by Mrs. Harsh Rekha do not have any bearing on the case in hand. 22. In Ram Chander v. Smt. Amar Devi (supra), the learned Single Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenant by observing that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that he was a sub-tenant and not a licensee did not warrant interference. 23. 22. In Ram Chander v. Smt. Amar Devi (supra), the learned Single Judge dismissed the revision petition filed by the tenant by observing that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority that he was a sub-tenant and not a licensee did not warrant interference. 23. In Karnail Singh v. Anirudh Parkash Kapil of Chandigarh (supra), the learned Single Judge dismissed the revision of the tenant by observing that the existence of separate ration cards, separate entrance to their portions of the disputed premises and the fact that sub-tenant was claiming rent from the government were sufficient to record a finding of sub-letting and the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority did not commit any error by holding so. 24. In Bhairab Chandra Nandan v. Manadhir Chandra Dtttt (supra), the Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court which had upset the concurrent finding recorded by the trial Court and the Appellate Court that the tenant had sub let the premises without the consent of the landlord. 25. In Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra), the Supreme Court held that sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. Their Lordships further held that it is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property and it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the sub tenant and further that the concurrent finding recorded by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority on the issue of sub-letting did not warrant interference. 26. In Santosh Devi and Ors. v. Vir Chand (Supra) and Lal Singh v. Ashok Kumar (supra), two learned Single Judges held that the finding of sub-letting recorded by the Rent Controller and/or the Appellate Authority did not warrant interference by the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act. 27. 26. In Santosh Devi and Ors. v. Vir Chand (Supra) and Lal Singh v. Ashok Kumar (supra), two learned Single Judges held that the finding of sub-letting recorded by the Rent Controller and/or the Appellate Authority did not warrant interference by the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act. 27. From what I have noted above, it is clear that each one of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners was decided on its own facts and the proposition laid down therein cannot be relied upon for upsetting the well reasoned order passed by the Appellate Authority. 28. As a result of the above discussion, I hold that the Appellate Authority did not commit any illegality or impropriety in reversing the findings recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of sub-letting and this petition is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.