JUDGMENT This revision under section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 30.7.1998, passed by 10th ADJ, Bhopal in M.C.A. No. 5/97. The suit premises No. 42-A B.H.E.L., Bhopal was given on lease to Late R.A. Shukla vide agreement dated 5.4.1971 (Annexure R-1). The term of lease expired in the Year 1981. Late R.A. Shukla sub-let or otherwise pared with the; possession of the suit premises to the applicant S.C. Sharma. The applicant has constructed pakka sheds, cabin, latrine, etc. on the suit premises contrary to term of the licence. Late R.A. Shukla also has stopped the business trade. Therefore, notice under section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") (Annexure A-4) was issued to late A.R. Shukla and the applicant to show cause against the proposed eviction. A.R. Shukla since died and the applicant has been proceeded ex parte, after concluding the hearing. The Estate Officer finally passed the order dated 10.11.1997 (Annexure A-9) directing the applicant to vacate the suit premise and deliver its possession to non-applicant. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred M.C.A. No. 4/97 in the Court of 10th ADJ, Bhopal which was dismissed vide order dated 30.7.1998. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been preferred. The applicant contended that vide document dated 27.7.1992 partnership was created of which late A.R. Shukla was one of the partner and the business to be carried out was in the name and title of M/s. Steel and Abrasive. For non-supply of raw matelial by the non-applicant, the factory ancilleries was closed down. The premium was regularly paid by M/s. Steel and Abrasive to the non-applicant. On being served with notice under section 4 of the Act, applicant submitted reply to the effect aforesaid. On being proceeded ex parte, he also made an application for setting aside the ex parte order. However, the Estate Officer rejected the application and passed the order dated 10.11.1997 under section 5 of the Act. On behalf of non-applicant, it has been contended that the lease of suit premises was made in favour of late A.R. Shukla vide agreement dated 5.4.1971 (Annexure R-l) for carrying the business of his own concern M/s. Steel and Abrasive. Late R.A. Shukla was not competent to enter into agreement of partnership and sub-let or part away with the possession of suit premises in favour of applicant S.C. Sharma. Late R.A. Shukla was not competent to enter into agreement of partnership and sub-let or part away with the possession of suit premises in favour of applicant S.C. Sharma. Since late R.A. Shukla has stopped the Unit and had sub-let or parted away with the possession in favour of applicant, committed breach of agreement and was 'liable to be vacated. After issuance of notice under section 4 the Estate Officer proceeded with the hearing and finally passed the order dated 10.11.1997. Lease agreement dated 5.4. I 971 (Annexure R-l) was executed by late A.R. Shukla of M/s. Steel and Abrasive Bhopal. As per term of the agreement late A.R. Shukla was not permitted to transfer light in respect of lease of suit premises in favour of any individual. Clause VII of this agreement is as under: "Not to assign or part transfer with this rights in the said premises under these presents to any person, firm or corporation nor sub-let the premises or any privilege granted therein to any other person what-so-ever.', Creation of partnership by late R.A. Shukla with applicant S.C. Sharma is of no avail as document (Annexure A-1) partnership deed is unregistered. The suit premise was given on lease to late R.A. Shukla of M/s. Steel and Abrasive Bhopal. The rights of lease could not have been transferred by him in favour of any person by constituting an unregistered partnership. The payment of premium was always made by M/s. Steel and Abrasive, Bhopal. Execution of document of partnership deed (Annexure A-1) has not been communicated to non-applicant. Even after proceedings ex parte, the Estate Officer has considered the reply submitted by applicant in response to notice under section 4 of the Act. Vide order dated 10.11.1997, it has been held that late R.A. Shukla has sub-let or parted with the possession of the suit premises to applicant S.C. Sharma. The applicant has constructed pakka sheds, cabin, latrine, etc. on the licensed premises in which he is staying with his employees. Late R.A. Shukla has stopped the production and business/trade is lying closed. The premises is being used for the purpose other than for which it was licensed. The applicant in pursuance of the aforesaid order has already been evicted from the suit premises. On these grounds, the order of eviction (Ann. A-9) dated 10.11.1997 was rightly passed by the Estate Officer. The premises is being used for the purpose other than for which it was licensed. The applicant in pursuance of the aforesaid order has already been evicted from the suit premises. On these grounds, the order of eviction (Ann. A-9) dated 10.11.1997 was rightly passed by the Estate Officer. On these facts and circumstances, M.C.A. No. 4/97, rightly has been dismissed by the impugned order, passed by ADJ. Consequently, revision fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.