Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. Respondents Ved Parkash and Ba-jrang La! filed eviction petition inter-alia on the ground that tenant Udmi Ram had sublet the demised premises which is a shop in favour of Rattan Lal, petitioner No. 2. The tenant contested the eviction petition on the ground that the alleged sub-tenant Rattan Lal who was his brothers son had been adopted by him and was working with him and there was no sub-letting. Registered adoption deed dated 9.11.1981 was relied upon and it was also stated that an earlier petition had been filed on the ground of sub-letting which was withdrawn. 2. Appearing as his own witness Ved Parkash PW1 deposed that Udmi Ram had sublet the shop to Rattan Lal at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- without permission of the landlord and stated that the earlier petition was filed alleging subletting by Udmi Ram to Kishan Lal, brother of Udmi Ram and matter was compromised when Kishan Lal agreed not to sit on the shop. AW2 Sham Sunder also supported the case of the landlord and he admitted that Ved Parkash was his maternal uncle. AW3 Pawan Kumar also supported the Case of the landlord. Tenant Udmi Ram who appeared as RW1 deposed that Rattan Lal was son of his real brother and was adopted when he was 10 years of age and Rattan Lal was now sitting on the shop for the last one and a half years as he was ill. Whenever he is in fit condition of health, he also sits on the shop. RW-2 Ram Babu was also examined as a witness by the tenant and so was RW3 Raghbir Singh. 3. The Rent Controller held that there was contradictory evidence and since registered adoption deed Ex-R-1 was not prepared at the time of adoption, there was no presumption of adoption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It was also observed that no documentary evidence was produced to show that Rattan Lal was shown as son of Udmi Ram. In para 9, it was held that since the tenant was unable to work himself, he had sublet the premises and to cover up the subletting, adoption deed was relied upon. 4. The appellate court affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. Hence this petition. 5. In para 9, it was held that since the tenant was unable to work himself, he had sublet the premises and to cover up the subletting, adoption deed was relied upon. 4. The appellate court affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller. Hence this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that two ingredients of proving subletting i.e. parting of possession and consideration therefore were not established and haying regard to close relationship of the tenant with the alleged sub-tenant, particularly when the tenant had no child and the sub-tenant was son of tenants brother, treated as son by the tenant, even if adoption was not accepted, working of the sub-tenant with the tenant could not amount to subletting. Reliance has been placed on Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata, (1996-2)113 P.L.R. 391, Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, 1990(1) R.L.R. 667, Benjamin Premanand Rewade v. Anil Joseph Rawade, 1999(1) R.C.R. 115, Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan and Ors. 1988(1) R.C.R. 629 and Shamsher Singh v. Sampuran Singh and Anr., (1998-3)120 P.L.R. 777. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that finding of the courts below was a concurrent finding of fact and was not liable to be interfered with in revision, He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Rajbir Kattr and Anr. v. Chakosiri and Co., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1845. He also submitted that best evidence of ration card and voters list was not produced to show that the sub-tenant was described as son of the tenant which would have been a normal course of action if there had been adoption. Reliance was placed on Mrs. Kanta Sagar v. Mr. Vinod Khanna, (2000-1)124 P.L.R. 682. It was also submitted that registration was not conclusive proof of adoption which only raised rebuttable presumption and in the present case, presumption did not arise or stood rebutted. Reliance was placed on Jai Singh v, Shakunila,^ (2003-1)133 P.L.R. 34. He also submitted that evidence for adoption should be free from any doubt and relied on decision in Kishori Lal v. Mt. Chaltibai, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 504. He submitted that in the present case, evidence was contradictory about the time of adoption and about the age. Reliance was placed on Jai Singh v, Shakunila,^ (2003-1)133 P.L.R. 34. He also submitted that evidence for adoption should be free from any doubt and relied on decision in Kishori Lal v. Mt. Chaltibai, A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 504. He submitted that in the present case, evidence was contradictory about the time of adoption and about the age. It is submitted that the issue of adoption could be decided by the rent Controller as an incidental issue as laid down by this court in Amar Singh v. Dalip Singh, A.I.R. 1981 Punjab 237 at Page 246, Para 23. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. In my view, this petition deserves to be allowed. No doubt, in exercise of revi-sional jurisdiction, there is inherent limitation unlike appellate jurisdiction, though jurisdiction under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is wider than revisiona! jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, in as much as the court is entitled to examine the legality and propriety of a conclusion arrived at by the lower authorities. As held by the Apex Court in Dev Kumar (supra), conclusion on the question of sub-letting is a conclusion on a question of law derived from the findings on the material on record. It was laid down that transfer of exclusive possession for consideration has to he established, Mere presence of a person other than the tenant does not lead to the conclusion that it was a result of sub-letting. Same is the view taken in Delhi Stationers, Benjamin Premanand, Jagan Nath and Shamsher Singh (supra). In Shamsher Singhs case, it was held that if tenant had not parted with possession but had joined another person in business who was closely related to him without there being any consideration, sub-letting could not be held to have been proved. 9. in the present case, Udmi Ram original tenant has not transferred possession exclusively. Rattan Lal alleged sub-tenant is none other than nephew of Udmi Ram. Udmi Ram stated that he was unwell and had joined Rattan Lal with him by adoption. No reason has been given by the courts below for rejecting this version. 9. in the present case, Udmi Ram original tenant has not transferred possession exclusively. Rattan Lal alleged sub-tenant is none other than nephew of Udmi Ram. Udmi Ram stated that he was unwell and had joined Rattan Lal with him by adoption. No reason has been given by the courts below for rejecting this version. Courts below have focussed on strict proof of rituals of adoption while case of the landlord could not be held to be proved even in absence thereof unless version of Udmi Ram that he was unwell and had joined Rattan Lal with him can be rejected. Thus, the view taken by the courts below is perverse in holding that subletting was proved even when Udmi Ram was not proved to have transferred tenancy to Rattan Lal for consideration. Though, AW Sham Sunder stated that Rattan Lal was paying rent of Rs. 150/- per month to Udmi Ram, the trial court observed that he was maternal uncle of Ved Parkash and his shop was 1/2 miles away from the disputed shop. Similarly AW3 Pawan Kumar stated that rent of Rs. 150/- was being paid by Rattan Lal to Udmi Ram and at one time, the same was paid in his presence but no finding has been recorded by the courts below accepting the said evidence. Even otherwise, the said evidence was not acceptable being inherently improbable. 10. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that ration card and voters list was not proved to show that sub-tenant was described as son of the tenant and that factum of adoption stood rebutted. There is no substance in the said contention. As already held, even if adoption was not strictly proved, inference of subletting cannot be drawn in absence of transfer of exclusive possession for consideration which has not been proved in the present case. Decisions relied on by counsel for the respondents are distinguishable. 11. For the above reasons, this revision petition is allowed. The judgments of the courts below are set aside and eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord is dismissed.