ORDER 1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree of eviction passed by the Court below evicting them on the ground envisaged under section 12 (1) (b) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'). 2. According to the plaint averments defendant No. 1/appellant No. 1 is the tenant of landlord/respondent, he resides on first floor and carrying on business on the ground floor of the tenanted accommodation. The rate of rent of Rs. 700/- per month. The defendant No. 1 has sub-let the ground floor portion to defendant No. 2 Kewalchand Jain without any permission of the landlord. Defendant No. 2 Kewalchand Jain is thus carrying on the business in the name and style of "Chhavi Darshan" and is running a photo studio by that name. The defendant No. 1 happens to take rent at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month and telephone charges at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month, in total 3,000/- from defendant No. 2. Thus, it made a cause to the plaintiff to file suit for eviction on the ground envisaged under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. 3. The defendants refuted the plaint averments by filing written statement. According to the defendants, on the ground floor business of Photo Studio was started and in the opening function of the Studio, the plaintiff was also present. The defendant No. 1 has not sub-let the ground floor to defendant No. 2. Indeed, he defendant No. 2 is the Manager in the Photo Studio. On the basis of these pleadings, it has been prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. The trial Court after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence dismissed the suit of plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the landlord filed first appeal before the learned lower appellate Court which has been allowed by the impugned judgment and decree and the suit for eviction has been decreed. 5. It has been vehemently argued by Shri Jain, learned counsel for appellant that there is overwhelming material in order to hold that defendant No. 1 is still carrying on the business of Photo Studio on the ground floor and defendant No. 2 is his Manager and, therefore, learned First Appellate Court erred in substantial error of law in decreeing the suit. It has also been put forth by him that an application (IA No. 2497/2005) has also been filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC for taking certain documents on record as additional evidence. The photocopies of those documents have been placed along with the application. According to learned counsel in these documents it has been specifically mentioned that the business of Photo Studio is being carried by defendant No. 1. These documents are income tax return, receipt of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, income tax clearance certificate and telephone bill receipts. 6. Considered the contentions of learned counsel for appellants. 7. On going through the statement of plaintiff, it is gathered that he has specifically stated in his testimony that defendant No. 1 has sub-let the ground floor of suit accommodation to defendant No. 2 in which defendant No. 2 is carrying on the business of photocopy. He is also realizing rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month and telephone charges Rs. 1,000/- per month. In cross-examination he has also stated that defendant No. 2 Kewalchand is realizing the profit from the business of photo copy. He has also stated that defendant No. 1 Shyam Kant Nigam occasionally sits in the Studio. The statement of plaintiff has been corroborated by an independent witness, namely, Raghuveer Prasad who has also stated that in the shop only Kewa1chand defendant No. 1 sits as he (witness) Raghuveer Prasad happens to go for photocopy purposes. He has stated that Kewalchand (defendant No. 2) told him that he has taken the ground floor on rent from defendant No. 1. 8. Defendant No. 1 Shyam Kant Nigam has admitted in his testimony that he is paying Rs. 1,200/- to defendant No. 2 Kewalchand as he is the Manager of his Studio and he has not sub-let the suit property to him. In his cross-examination he has admitted that by profession he is a Magician and he often remains out of Jabalpur in order to show his magic programmes and in his absence defendant No. 2 happens to manage his business. He has also filed income tax clearance certificate of the year 1997-98, 1998 to 2000 and also the registration certificate under the Shop Act and certain telephone bills. In cross-examination he had admitted that he has not renewed his registration certificate of shop after the year 1980. He has also filed income tax clearance certificate of the year 1997-98, 1998 to 2000 and also the registration certificate under the Shop Act and certain telephone bills. In cross-examination he had admitted that he has not renewed his registration certificate of shop after the year 1980. Defendant No. 2 Kewalchand has also stated in his testimony that he happens to receive Rs. 1,200/- per month from defendant No. 1 Shyam Kant. This witness has also admitted that by profession Shyam Kant is a magician and he always remains out of Jabalpur City in respect to demonstration of his magic shows. 9. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the learned First Appellate Court while appreciating the evidence from paragraph 13 onwards has specifically come to the conclusion that since defendant No. 1 Shyam Kant has left the control from the ground floor in which "Chhavi Darshan" Studio is running. On the basis of evidence placed on record, the first appellate Court has also given a finding of fact that indeed the said business is being run by defendant No. 2 and he is paying rent to defendant No. 1. Since an independent witness Raghuveer Prasad has corroborated the case of plaintiff though he was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, there is sufficient material in order to hold that defendant No. 1 has sub-let ground floor to defendant No. 2. 10. It is very difficult to give direct evidence in regard to sub-letting for the simple reason that the contract of sub-tenancy is normally done privately and the landlord is not aware about the terms of the sub-tenancy. Thus, in order to prove a ground under clause (b) of section 12 (1) of the Act, the decision is required to be based on the basis of probability of preponderance. Defendant No. 2 himself has stated that defendant No. 1 always remains out of Jabalpur in regard to the demonstration of his magic shows and, therefore, it can be inferred that since there is no control of defendant No. 1 on the ground floor in which the business of photocopy is carried out, the Court below did not commit any error in holding that defendant No. 1 has sub-let the ground floor to defendant No. 2. 11. 11. In the case of Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India [1998 (II) MPWN 1 = (1998) 3 SCC 1 ] the Supreme Court has specifically held that the 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. This type of arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is w delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. While placing reliance on earlier decision in the case of Rajbir Kaur v. S. Chokesiri and Co. [ (1989) 1 SCC 19 ], it has been held by the Supreme Court that it would not be impossible for the Court to draw an inference that transaction was entered into with the monetary consideration of any kind and it is always not necessary for the landlord in every case to prove the payment of consideration. 12. The Single Bench of this Court in the case of Dhanya Kumar Jain v. Mata Prasad Gupta and another [ 2001 (2) MPLJ 497 ] has also reiterated the same principle and further held that the negative burden is on the tenant to prove that tenanted premises were not sub-let. The Single Bench of this Court while allowing the second appeal passed the decree of eviction under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. 13. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned first appellate Court. They are based on appreciation of evidence and they are pure findings of fact which cannot be assailed in this second appeal. The Single Bench of this Court while allowing the second appeal passed the decree of eviction under section 12 (1) (b) of the Act. 13. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned first appellate Court. They are based on appreciation of evidence and they are pure findings of fact which cannot be assailed in this second appeal. The decision of Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy [ (2005) 1 SCC 481 ] placed reliance by learned counsel for appellants has no bearing in this case because in that case tenant had entered into a partnership for the purpose of carrying on the business in the tenanted premises and in that situation it was held by the Supreme Court that it does not amount to sub-let but here the facts are altogether different and therefore this decision is not applicable in the present case. 14. Even if, the documents filed along with application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC are considered, merely because the name of defendant No. 1 Shyam Kant Nigam is mentioned in income tax clearance certificate and telephone bill as the owner of "Chhavi Darshan" would not sweep out the evidence and the probability of preponderance in regard to subletting the ground floor to defendant No. 2. 15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed summarily. However, looking to the facts and circumstances, time is allowed to the appellants to vacate the suit premises. The appellants shall vacate the suit premises on or before 31.1.2007 subject to the condition that they shall file an usual undertaking in that regard in the trial Court on or before 21.8.2006. They are further directed to deposit the entire cost of the two Courts below as well as the rent on or before 21st August, 2006 and shall continue to deposit the rent in terms of section 13 (1) of the Act. It is further made clear that in case any of the condition is violated or the undertaking is not submitted in the trial Court on or before 21.8.2006, the landlord/respondent shall be free to get the decree executed.