Judgment Ranjit Singh, J. 1. The petitioners have been directed to hand over the vacant possession of the demised shop to the landlord within three months once they failed in their appeal filed against the order of their ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. 2. The demised shop is a part of a building, which was owned by the respondent and his brother, Jagjit Singh. Heirs of Jagjit Singh agreed to sell their share to the respondent and, thus, he is the landlord of the said shop. The shop was let out to petitioner No. 1 at the monthly rent of Rs. 1,150/- and rent note in this regard is 27.7.1983. The respondent sought ejectment of the petitioners from the demised shop on the ground that he requires the same for his personal use and occupation. The shop in dispute is a part of big building having 5 shops and a passage on its front portion. On the first floor of this building and a space behind, the respondent is running a hotel by the name of "Hotel Palace". The hotel is having 22 residential rooms and one dormitory. The hotel is having no restaurant or bar and as such, the respondent is not able to provide food and snacks to the customers who stay in the hotel which is having approximately 50% occupancy. 3. The location of the hotel is opposite General Bus Stand, Hoshiarpur and posh model town area of the city is behind the hotel building. Just to indicate the importance of the location, it is pointed out that towards the eastern side of the building are two theatre and a hotel-cum-bar by the name and style of "Amber Restaurant". On the west side of the building is a new hotel by the name of "Hotel Presidency". This hotel is also having a restaurant and a bar and is statedly doing roaring business. Thus, this premises is having a great commercial value and has also a great potential for running a good hotel, restaurant and a bar. Son of the applicant is aged 25 years and has recently got married. He is not doing any independent business and so the respondent wants to expand his hotel business to settle his son also. Thus, this premises is having a great commercial value and has also a great potential for running a good hotel, restaurant and a bar. Son of the applicant is aged 25 years and has recently got married. He is not doing any independent business and so the respondent wants to expand his hotel business to settle his son also. Respondent already has two shops in his possession out of the five shops as afore-mentioned, one of which is being used as a reception of the hotel. It is further pointed out that the respondent has already engaged an Architect who has prepared the site plan. Thus, the respondent would require this shop for his bonafide use for which he filed the ejectment petition. 4. The petitioners appeared in response to the notice. They raised objection in regard to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the respondent was not owner of the entire property. The petitioners would also dispute the bonafide need and necessity as projected by the respondent. Objection is also raised that heirs of Jagjit Singh have not been impleaded. Dispute regarding rate of rent is also raised. It is further pleaded that petitioner No. 2 is running the shop in dispute as a Manager of petitioner No. las he is having a power of attorney in his favour which is dated 15.2.1993. it is pointed out by the petitioners that the respondent is having a huge urban property. He is running a Navyug Marriage Palace opposite Bus Stand, Hoshiarpur. He also is running a Navjeet Farm-cum-marriage palace at Una Road besides the hotel by the name of "Hotel Palace". It is pointed out that neither the respondent nor his son, Shavinderjit Singh are ever found sitting in the either hotel or marriage palace. Shavinderjit Singh is stated to be an advocate by profession and is running a practice. It is also pointed out that the demised shop is only 10 ft x 20 ft. from which the petitioners are earning their livelihood. The petitioners statedly are running Dhaba. 5. The parties accordingly went to trial on different issues. The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, decided all the issues in favour of the respondent and ordered ejectment of the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the demised shop is only 10 ft x 20 ft. from which the petitioners are earning their livelihood. The petitioners statedly are running Dhaba. 5. The parties accordingly went to trial on different issues. The Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur, decided all the issues in favour of the respondent and ordered ejectment of the petitioners. The Appellate Court, however, came to a different conclusion in regard to the bonafide and personal need of the landlord and held the same not to be proved and it was only a desire and a wish to start the business of bar-cum-restaurant. The Appellate Authority, however, up-held the order of ejectment on the second ground of subletting of the shop by petitioner No. l in favour of petitioner No. 2. This finding is under challenge in the present revision petition. 6. Concededly, petitioner No. 1 took the shop in dispute on rent for running a Dhaba. Rent note was executed in favour of petitioner No. l. The Dhaba is running since 1983. The case of petitioner No. 2 is that he is running the shop as a Manager of petitioner No. l on the basis of power of attorney in his favour given on 15.2.1993. Petitioner No. l is a sister-in-law of petitioner No. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that the shop was never sub-let to petitioner No. 2. Their stand, however, got exposed during their cross-examination. Husband of petitioner No. l, Balbir Singh, is employed as S.D.O., Improvement Trust, Ludhiana since 1985-86. Petitioner No. 2 is, thus, running this Dhaba since 1993. He could not show if he is getting any salary. He also could not produce any account book, which might have been maintained. Petitioner No. 2, when pointedly asked, admitted that he has no other source of income except what he was earning from the shop in dispute. He, however, could not tell how much income he is having. He further stated that his brother (husband of petitioner No. l) took 50% of the total income, which he earned from the Dhaba. From this evidence, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 2 was in exclusive possession of the demised shop. He, however, could not tell how much income he is having. He further stated that his brother (husband of petitioner No. l) took 50% of the total income, which he earned from the Dhaba. From this evidence, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 2 was in exclusive possession of the demised shop. The Appellate Authority has given valid and cogent reasons to find that petitioner No. 2 can not be taken to be a Manager of petitions No. I as he could not show if he was getting any fixed salary. It was rightly observed by the Appellate Authority that admission made by petitioner No. 2 would go to show that he had the entire and total control over the demised shop. It was found as a fact that petitioner No. l, Promila Devi, was staying at Ludhiana for the last 12 years with her husband. She had also appeared in the witness-box and admitted that petitioner No. 2 was meeting his house hold expenses from the income earned from the Dhaba. The witness also conceded that the average annual income from the Dhaba was from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/-. Petitioner No. 1 conceded that she was not paying any fixed amount to petitioner No. 2. She could not also tell what amount she was paying to petitioner No. 2. She also could not produce any account books. Her version as given was found contrary to the version given by petitioner No. 2, who claimed that he was receiving 50% of the income. Against this, the statement of petitioner No. l reveals that she was taking the entire income from the Dhaba. This is sufficient basis for the Appellate Authority to disbelieve the version given by the petitioners. The finding of facts recorded by the Appellate Authority that it was a case of sub-letting, thus, was fully established. Nothing substantial could be pointed out from the record before me to call for interference in this finding of fact. 7. Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned Senior counsel, however, lias based his submissions on the legal pleas by referring to the case of Jagan Nath (deceased) through Lrs. v. Chander Bhan and Ors. The counsel would contend that to prove sub-letting, the parting with possession by the tenant must be shown. 7. Mr. R.S. Mittal, learned Senior counsel, however, lias based his submissions on the legal pleas by referring to the case of Jagan Nath (deceased) through Lrs. v. Chander Bhan and Ors. The counsel would contend that to prove sub-letting, the parting with possession by the tenant must be shown. It has been held in this case by the Honble Supreme Court that parting with possession would mean giving possession to person other than those to whom possession had been given by the lessee. The contention of the learned Counsel is that petitioner No. 2 was only a Manager whereas legal possession of the premises continued to be with petitioner No. l. According to the counsel user of the premises by a person is not parting with possession so long as the tenant contains the legal possession himself. No doubt there must be a vesting of possession by the tenant in another person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession but the facts in this case would show otherwise. Undoubtedly the physical possession of the premises is with petitioner No. 2. The evidence as came on record through the cross-examination of both the witnesses would clearly show that petitioner No. l did not have such a control which would mean that she continued to have the legal possession of the premises. From last 12 years, she is not even staying at Hoshiarpur. She is staying with her husband who is working at Ludhiana. The version of petitioner No. l would clearly show that she really did not have any control over the premises. She even could not tell if she was giving any money to petitioner No. 2, which the later claimed that he was getting 50% of the earnings. This legal position as held in the case of Jagan Nath (supra), thus, would not help the cause of the petitioners in the instant case having regards to the facts as the same stand established on record. The case of M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors., is also to a similar effect. In this case also, the Honble Supreme Court observed that there must be parting of legal possession i.e. Possession with the right to include and also right to exclude others. The case of M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors., is also to a similar effect. In this case also, the Honble Supreme Court observed that there must be parting of legal possession i.e. Possession with the right to include and also right to exclude others. All these matters are question of facts and, thus, would be required to be established on the basis of evidence. It has been so observed in so many words by the Honble Supreme Court in this case. It is held that the question whether there was a sub-letting and whether for that written consent of the landlord has been obtained are questions of facts and the Honble Supreme Court went on to observe that concurrent finding of fact on those questions would normally be accepted by the Supreme Court. In the present case, the Court of Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority had found it is a matter of fact on the basis of evidence that it is a case of sub-letting and this concurrent finding would need to be accepted. Learned Senior counsel has then referred to the case of Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar. The Supreme Court in this case was dealing with a case where tenant had permitted his relative as well as employee living as a co-tenant in an adjacent room to use his kitchen and latrine. This permission, was found not amounting to subletting or parting with possession by the tenant. 8. The ratio of law as laid down on these facts would certainly not be anywhere near parallel with the facts of the instant case. Delhi Stationers (supra) was a case where mere user of kitchen and latrine by a co-tenant residing in portion of the same house was held not to be sub-letting and these facts, did not certainly reveal any parting of legal possession. It was a case of mere use of latrine or kitchen etc. where the tenant himself continued to stay and used the said kitchen and latrine as well. Obviously, it was a clear case of retaining the possession and did not give any indication of divesting of the possession by a tenant. Accordingly, the legal submissions as made by the learned Counsel are clearly not attracted to the facts of the present case. The impugned order, as such, would not call for any interference. 9. Obviously, it was a clear case of retaining the possession and did not give any indication of divesting of the possession by a tenant. Accordingly, the legal submissions as made by the learned Counsel are clearly not attracted to the facts of the present case. The impugned order, as such, would not call for any interference. 9. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. 10. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners has prayed for grant of time to the petitioners to make some alternative arrangement as they have their livelihood dependent on the business being run in the demised shop. This prayer of the counsel is justified. As requested, the petitioners would have six months time to vacate the demised premises from the date of the order. This shall, however, be subject to a condition that the petitioners would file an written undertaking in the form of an affidavit before this Court that they will hand over the vacant possession of the shop to the respondent on or before 13.11.2008. They shall also file an undertaking to pay rent upto 13.11.2008 in advance. This revision petition is adjourned to 29.5.2008 enable the petitioners to file the above said undertaking in the form of an affidavit.