Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. In this revision, the petitioner (tenant) has prayed for quashing order dated 11.6.1997 passed by Rent Controller, Chandigarh in Rent Application No. 11 of 1993 for his eviction from the ground floor of S.C.O. No. 268, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh and order dated 20.12.1999 by which Appellate Authority, Chandigarh dismissed Rent Appeal No. 6 of 1999 filed by him against the order of eviction. The Facts 2. Shri Ram Saran Dass and Sons (H.U.F.) through its Karta - Ram Saran Dass, Advocate (non-petitioner No. 1) filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as applicable to Union Territory, Chandigarh) for short, "the Act") for eviction of the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2- Gurjit Singh Gill from the demised premises by making the following assertions: (i) It is the landlord of the above said S.C.O. along with Smt. Beena Arora wife of Shri U.K. Arora. (ii) The ground floor of the S.C.O. was rented out to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,700/-. (iii) The petitioner had not paid rent since 1.12.1991. (iv) The petitioner had sub-let back portion of the ground floor of the S.C.O. to non-petitioner No. 2, who was running the business of refrigeration under the name and style of Gill Refrigeration Centre. 3. On notice, the petitioner filed written statement. He challenged the locus standi of non-petitioner No. 1 to file eviction petition by asserting that he was tenant of Smt. Beena Arora and there did not exist landlord-tenant relationship between him and non-petitioner No. 1. He further averred that entire rent up to date at the rate of Rs. 1,500/-per month had been paid to landlord - Smt. Beena Arora. He also denied the allegation of sub-letting and averred that firm - Gill Refrigeration Centre is owned and controlled by him and that he was doing business in partnership with non-petitioner No. 2. 4. Non-petitioner No. 2 filed a separate written statement in which he admitted that he was the tenant of the petitioner and was regularly paying rent to the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and that he was independently doing business of refrigeration. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: "1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioner and respondent No. 1? OPP 2. What is rate of rent? OPP 3. 2,000/- per month and that he was independently doing business of refrigeration. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Rent Controller framed the following issues: "1. Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the petitioner and respondent No. 1? OPP 2. What is rate of rent? OPP 3. Whether respondent No. 1 is in the arrears of rent as alleged in the petition? OPP 4. Whether respondent No. 1 has sub-let the back half portion of the ground floor of the demised premises to respondent No. 2? OPP 5. Relief." 6. Shri Ram Saran Dass (Karta of non-petitioner No. 1), who appeared as PW-15, produced the deed of transfer of lease Ex.P-15/2 vide which half portion of the premises in question was transferred to non-petitioner No. 1 and the remaining portion was transferred in favour of Smt. Beena Arora. He stated that the rate of rent was Rs. 1,700/- per month and that the petitioner had not paid rent since 1.12.1991. He further deposed that the petitioner was doing business of photography in one portion of the ground floor of the demised premises and had leased out the half back portion to non-petitioner No. 2 who was doing independent business of refrigeration under the name and style of Gill Refrigeration Centre. He also examined Ashwani Kumari, Manager, United Bank of India, Sector 17. Chandigarh (PW-5), V.K. Bansal (PW-9), N.S. Saini, Deputy Manager, United Bank of India (PW-11) and Harnek Singh, Ahlmad in the Court of Shri G.R. Banial (PW-12) to prove the landlord-tenant relationship between non-petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner. In his statement, the petitioner gave out that he was tenant of Smt. Beena Arora and not of non-petitioner No. 1. The petitioner stated that he had taken the premises on rent from Shri Mulakh Raj Arora on 10.5.1978 and later on. Smt. Beena Arora became his landlord. He also stated that rate of rent was Rs. 1,500/- per month. On the issue of sub-letting, the petitioner stated that he was doing refrigeration business in partnership with non-petitioner No. 2 and no portion of the demised premises had been leased out to the latter. 7. Smt. Beena Arora became his landlord. He also stated that rate of rent was Rs. 1,500/- per month. On the issue of sub-letting, the petitioner stated that he was doing refrigeration business in partnership with non-petitioner No. 2 and no portion of the demised premises had been leased out to the latter. 7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and examining their pleadings and evidence, the Rent Controller held as under:- (a) That non-petitioner No. 1 has been able to prove the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties; (b) That the rate of rent was Rs. 1,500/- per month and not Rs. 1,700/- per month, as claimed by the landlord (non-petitioner No. 1 herein); (c) That the rent had been duly paid by the petitioner to Smt. Beena Arora; (d) That the petitioner had sub-let a portion of the tenanted premises without the consent of non-petitioner No. 1; and (e) That non-petitioner No. 2 was doing independent business of refrigeration and the petitioner has nothing to do with the said business. 8. The Rent Controller rejected the plea put forward by the petitioner that he was doing the business of refrigeration in partnership with non-petitioner No. 2-Gurjit Singh Gill. For this purpose, the Rent Controller relied on the following factors: (1) In the written statement, non-petitioner No. 2 categorically admitted that back portion of S.C.O. No. 268, Sector 35-D had been covered by the petitioner and the same was rented out to him at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month and that he had been regularly paying rent to the petitioner. (2) There is a partition of the demised premises and the back portion thereof is in exclusive possession of non-petitioner No. 2 who was carrying business under the name and style of Gill Refrigeration Centre. (3) Non-petitioner No. 2 had obtained independent telephone connection. 2,000/- per month and that he had been regularly paying rent to the petitioner. (2) There is a partition of the demised premises and the back portion thereof is in exclusive possession of non-petitioner No. 2 who was carrying business under the name and style of Gill Refrigeration Centre. (3) Non-petitioner No. 2 had obtained independent telephone connection. (4) The so-called partnership between the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 was a sham transaction because - (i) the partnership was unregistered; (ii) No sales tax number had been obtained in respect of partnership firm; (iii) No Bank Account was opened in the name of partnership; (iv) No statement of account was ever prepared in respect of the business of the partnership; (v) The entire capital for the refrigeration business was contributed by non-petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner did not make any contribution in the partnership; (vi) The petitioner did not make any purchase of material or tools or other equipments required for refrigeration business and everything including the work of issuing receipts in lieu of payment received for refrigeration work was done by non-petitioner No. 2; and (vii) non-petitioner No. 2 had taken loan from the Bank for the business of refrigeration and the petitioner did not make any effort even in that regard. On the basis of above findings, the Rent Controller ordered eviction of the petitioner. 9. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. 10. Shri Arun Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority on the issue of sub-letting of a portion of the demised premises to non-petitioner No. 2 is perverse because it is based on total misreading of evidence produced by the parties and, therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside. He submitted that the statement of non-petitioner No. 2 could not have been relied upon by the Rent Controller for recording an adverse finding against the petitioner because he was in collusion with non-petitioner No. 1. He submitted that the statement of non-petitioner No. 2 could not have been relied upon by the Rent Controller for recording an adverse finding against the petitioner because he was in collusion with non-petitioner No. 1. Shri Jain emphasised that non-petitioner No. 1 had not led any evidence to prove that the petitioner did not have control over the portion of the premises in which refrigeration business was being carried on and submitted that non-registration of the partnership, non-obtaining of sales tax number or non-preparation of accounts cannot lead to an inference that the petitioner was not a partner in the business of refrigeration. In support of his arguments, Shri Jain relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagan Nath (deceased) through his Legal Representatives v. Chandar Bhan and Ors., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1362 and Dev Kumar (Died) through L.Rs. v. Swaran Lata, (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 91 (S.C.) and of Gujarat High Court in Girdhalal Chhotalal Zaveri v. Lilavatiben Ratilal 1996(1) R.C.R. 487. 11. Shri B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 1 argued that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller on the issue of sub-letting of a portion of the demised premises by the petitioner to non-petitioner No. 2, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, is a pure finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence produced by the parties and in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot interfere with such a finding. Shri Mahajan laid emphasis on the fact that in his written statement, the petitioner had not set up the plea of partnership and argued that the evidence produced by him to show that the business of refrigeration was being carried by him in partnership with non-petitioner No. 2 was/is liable to be discarded/Shri Mahajan submitted that the petitioner had concocted the theory of partnership between him and non-petitioner No. 2, with the sole object of avoiding eviction on the ground of sub-letting and the Rent Controller did not commit any error by discarding the evidence produced by him. Learned counsel pointed out that the so-called partnership deed was executed on 5.12.1992, whereas the business of refrigeration had been started by non-petitioner No. 2 even before 1991. He further pointed out that non-petitioner No. 2 had taken loan from the Bank prior to 1991 in his individual capacity. Learned counsel pointed out that the so-called partnership deed was executed on 5.12.1992, whereas the business of refrigeration had been started by non-petitioner No. 2 even before 1991. He further pointed out that non-petitioner No. 2 had taken loan from the Bank prior to 1991 in his individual capacity. In support of this statement, Shri Mahajan referred to notice dated 17.5.1991 issued by Shri H.C. Gupta, Advocate for the Bank to non-petitioner No. 2 for return of the loan. Shri Mahajan also invited my attention to the complaint made by Swaran Singh against Gill Refrigeration Centre to show that the petitioner had nothing to do with refrigeration business. 12. I have thoughtfully considered the respective arguments and carefully perused the record. In my opinion, the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority that the petitioner had sub-let a portion of the demised premises to non-petitioner No. 2, who was independently running refrigeration business does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 15(5) of the Act because learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any error apparent in the appreciation of evidence by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority. 13. The argument of Shri Jain that the business of refrigeration was being carried out by the petitioner in partnership with non-petitioner No. 2 and he continued to have control over the entire premises has no substance and the same deserves to be rejected because - (a) In the written statement filed before the Rent Controller, the petitioner did not set up the plea of partnership with non-petitioner No. 2; (b) The refrigeration business was being carried out exclusively by non-petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner had no role to play in it; (c) He neither made any financial contribution in the refrigeration business nor was he involved in the running of Gill Refrigeration Centre; (d) The so-called partnership was brought into existence in December, 1992, whereas the refrigeration business had been started by non-petitioner No. 2 even before 1991; (e) The petitioner did not have any control whatsoever on the refrigeration business being carried out by non-petitioner No. 2 under the name and style of Gill Refrigeration Centre; and (f) The portion which was leased out to non-petitioner No. 2 was under his exclusive possession and the petitioner did not have any control over it. 14. 14. I may also mention that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence before the Rent Controller to show that non-petitioner No. 2 was not his tenant and that he was not receiving any rent from him at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month. 15. In view of the above, I hold that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority on the issue of sub-letting of a portion of the demised premises by the petitioner to non-petitioner No. 2 does not call for interference by this Court. 16. The judgments relied upon by Shri Jain do not, in any manner, help the cause of the petitioner. In Jagan Naths case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the tenant was not liable to be ejected on the ground of sub-letting because he had been running the business in the rented premises and after retirement from business, he continued to have control ever the tenanted promises. Their Lordships further held that user of premises by a person other than tenant does not amount to parting with possession if the tenant retains legal possession thereof. In Dev Kumars case (supra), the Supreme Court held that sub-letting cannot be treated as proved where the tenant was conducting his own business in the shop (tenanted premises) as well as business of Commission Agent of another firm and the firm was also allowed to conduct business in the shop. In Girdhalals case (supra), the learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court held that in the absence of any evidence that the tenant had lost his legal possession or abandoned his interest in the premises, sub-letting cannot be treated to have been proved. All the afore-mentioned cases were decided in their peculiar facts and none of them has got any parallel with the case in hand. No other point has been argued. 17. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. However, three months time is given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. All the afore-mentioned cases were decided in their peculiar facts and none of them has got any parallel with the case in hand. No other point has been argued. 17. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. However, three months time is given to the petitioner to vacate the premises. This shall be subject to his furnishing an undertaking before the Rent Controller, Chandigarh within ten days from today that he will hand over the vacant possession of the premises to the landlord at the end of three months time and will continue to pay the amount equivalent to the monthly rent by way of damages for use and occupation of the tenanted premises. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the fee prescribed for urgent application.