Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. This Revision Petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.1982 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Rohtak whereby the petitioners have been ordered to be evicted from the demised premises on the ground that petitioner No. 1 has sub-let the same to his brother, namely, petitioner No. 2. 2. It may be noticed here that the eviction petition preferred by the respondent-landlord under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the Act) was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide his order dated May 26, 1981. 3. Shop bearing No. 6/88, Ward-6, M.C. Bahadurgarh was rented out by the respondent-landlord to petitioner No. 1 somewhere in the year 1976. The respondent sought ejectment of the petitioner No. 1 on the grounds that: (i) he is in arrears of rent from 1.6.1978 till dated @ Rs. 125/- per month; and (ii) has sub-let the shop to his brother, namely, respondent No. 2 to whom exclusive possession thereof has been given without the written consent of the landlord. The petitioners contested the petition on both counts. It is not in dispute that the arrears of rent were tendered on the first date of hearing and, thus, the first ground of eviction was no longer available to the landlord. As regards the second ground, namely, sub-letting of the premises, the petitioners hotly contested and averred that they being brothers were joint in food and lodging with their parents and petitioner No. 2 after completing his schooling, had started helping the first petitioner in his business which stood expanded with the passage of time. The petitioners specifically averred that petitioner No. 1 had not parted with the possession of the demised premises and continued to be in actual physical possession thereof. 4. In order to discharge the initial onus that the original tenant, namely, petitioner No. 1 had parted with the possession of the shop in favour of petitioner No. 2, the respondent-landlord examined one Sant Lal (AW-1) as his first witness who, however, appears to have fired back and deposed that the shop was rented out to Bimal Kumar, petitioner No. 1 and Bimal Kumar is paying the rent to the landlord till today and it is he alone who is doing business in the said shop. The landlords attorney Satish Chander (AW-2) of course, supported the landlord/s version and alleged that Sunil Kumar (petitioner No. 2) is working on the shop from the last 4-5 years though the rent was always being paid by Bimal Kumar. He further deposed that upto 1978, Bimal Kumar continued to pay the rent but later on told him to realize the same from Sunil Kumar to whom the business had been allegedly entrusted. According to this witness, petitioner No. 1 also handed over to him a photostat copy of the application for transfer of the subject business in the name of Sunil Kumar. He denied the suggestion that Bimal Kumar and Sunil Kumar are joint in food, lodging or business as according to this witness, Bimla Kumar is running his business in another shop since the year 1978. Tara Chand (AW3) was the third witness who deposed on the same lines as Satish Chander (AW2). Roshan (AW4) has produced Form-D which was marked as B and is signed by Sunil Kumar-petitioner No. 2. Besides this, the respondent placed on record certified copies of the voters list for the year 1980 (Ex. P-2 and P-3) in order to show that petitioner No. 1 was living separately from his father. He also produced Ex.PX, which is form ST-15 dated 23.6.1976 and appears to have been signed by petitioner No. 2. 5. As against this, petitioner No. 1 (RW1) deposed that their business is joint and after passing Higher Secondary Examination, petitioner No. 2 who is otherwise independently doing the business of repair of watches, had started helping him. He categorically denied that the application, photostat copy of which is mark A was ever moved by him. In response to a court question, he informed that the sale tax returns were lastly filed by him in November, 1980 in his own name. He denied the allegation of sub-letting or that Sunil Kumars name was ever shown as proprietor of the business in the sales tax forms. One Satish Chander (RW-2) who is running business in the adjoining shop, deposed that petitioner No. 1 is in possession of the subject shop and is running business therein. He further deposed that sometimes petitioner No. 2 or their father did come at the shop to help petitioner No. 1 in his day-to-day business activities. Similar was the version of Pawan Kumar (RW3). He further deposed that sometimes petitioner No. 2 or their father did come at the shop to help petitioner No. 1 in his day-to-day business activities. Similar was the version of Pawan Kumar (RW3). Mula Ram, Tax Inspector (RW4) deposed that the summoned record of the Sales Tax Department was brought by him and as per the same, the demised premises is owned by Ajay Kumar (respondent) in which petitioner No. 1 (Bimal Kumar) is the tenant. Similarly, Preet Singh-clerk in the office of Labour Inspector (RW-5) produced the summoned record in which Bimal Kumar Jain, namely, petitioner No. 1 was shown as the employer of the shop, i.e. Jain Crockery House. Besides this, the petitioners tendered in evidence copy of assessment order (Ex.R-1) Photostat copies of licence (Ex.R-2 and R-3), registration of the shop under the Shop & Establishment Act (Ex.R-4), Form-F (Ex.R-5) and certified copy of the House-Tax Assessment Register of the Municipality (Ex.R-6). 6. On a consideration of the aforementioned material on record, the learned Rent Controller concluded that at the best it was a case where petitioner No. 1 has taken one more shop on rent for doing the same business of crockery and his younger brother, namely, petitioner No. 2 oftenly sits along with him in the disputed shop to help the 1st petitioner in running the business at both the places. The Rent Controller further held that there is nothing on record to suggest that any payment was being made by the petitioner No. 2 to petitioner No. 1 as rent and that the business still belongs to Bimal Kumar, petitioner No. 1 only. With these findings, the Rent Controller concluded that the landlord has failed to prove sub-letting. The eviction petition was accordingly dismissed. 7. Aggrieved the respondent-landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act. He also moved an application dated 28.8.1981 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to lead additional evidence by summoning: (i) the original application allegedly moved by petitioner No. 1 before the Excise and Taxation Department, the photostat copy of which was on record as Mark A; and (ii) to place on record an anonymous letter allegedly received by him from the Sales Tax Department along with photostat copy of the original documents. 8. 8. The above stated application was allowed by the Appellate Authority and a photostat copy of the application dated 28.4.1976, purported to have been moved by petitioner No. 1 before the Excise and Taxation Officer, Bahadurgarh, for transferring the sales tax licence in favour of his brother, namely, petitioner No. 2 was got exhibited as Ex.C-1. 9. The Appellate Authority, however, suo moto passed yet another order dated 24.5.1982 to the following effect: Arguments heard in part. During the course of the arguments I feel that inquiry should be made into the change in the proprietorship effected in the name of Satish Kumar and subsequently in the name of Vimal Kumar of the firm M/s Jain Crockery House from the year 1976 to 80. Let AETO Bahadurgarh be again summoned as CW with the assessment files including returns and assessment orders of the said concerns from 1976 to 1980 through Commissioner Excise and Taxation Department, Rohtak on P.F. and Registered cover be filed within two days for 3.6.1982. P.F. and registered cover shall be contributed by both the parties. Both parties shall pay the D.M. etc. to the witness in court by making equal contribution. 10. Meanwhile, one more application was moved by the respondent-landlord to summon and examine some officials of the ales Tax Department. That application was also allowed and O.P. Uttam, Assistant Excise and Taxation Officer, Bahadurgarh as well as Balbir Singh, Record Keeper of the said Department were examined as CW-1 and CW-2. In his deposition, O.P. Uttam (CW-I) stated that an application dated 28.4.1976 was received from petitioner No. 1 for the change of proprietorship of the firm and to transfer the sales tax number in favour of petitioner No. 2 (Sunil Kumar). No order, however, for the said change was ever passed. He also produced the assessment order for the year 1980-81 (Ex.RX) as well as for the year 1977-78 pertaining to M/s Jain Crockery House, Bahadurgarh, it is recorded that Sunil Kumar is finally present but he is not re-corded to be the proprietor of the firm. However, at the time of passing of the assessment order for the year 1978-79, Sunil Kumar was present and mentioned as "proprietor of the concern". In the year 1979-80, Sunil Kumar was again recorded as present but as brother of the proprietor, along with his advocate. However, at the time of passing of the assessment order for the year 1978-79, Sunil Kumar was present and mentioned as "proprietor of the concern". In the year 1979-80, Sunil Kumar was again recorded as present but as brother of the proprietor, along with his advocate. Similarly entry was made in the assessment order for the year 1980-81. 11. Relying upon the above referred additional evidence, the learned Appellate Authority held that the application mark A was in fact moved by petitioner No. 1 for transfer of the sales tax number and proprietorship of the business being run in the demised premises in favour of his brother, namely, petitioner No. 2 and genuineness of its photostat copy can not be doubted owing to the official nothings recorded thereupon. The Appellate Authority further held that in some of the assessment orders petitioner No. 2 is shown to be present in his capacity as proprietor of the firm which does suggest that the entire business had been actually transferred in his same. The Appellate Authority further observed that as the petitioners have failed to produce the accounts books of the Jain Crockery House, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The Appellate Authority accordingly concluded that the respondent has been able to prove that petitioner No. 1 is no longer running the business in the demised premises and has parted with the possession thereof in favour of his brother, namely, petitioner No. 2. As a sequel to these findings, the eviction petition has been allowed and the impugned order of eviction, on the ground of sub-letting has been passed. 12. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and have also gone through the entire evidence on record. 13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that neither the fact that petitioner No. 1 has parted with the possession of the rented property exclusively in favour of petitioner No. 2 has been proved nor an iota of evidence that petitioner No. 1 has been receiving any monetary consideration from petitioner No. 2 has been led. It is argued that overwhelming documentary evidence comprising of the records duly maintained by different govt. departments does prove beyond any doubt that petitioner No. 1 has been and continues to be the sole proprietor of the business run from the demised premises. It is argued that overwhelming documentary evidence comprising of the records duly maintained by different govt. departments does prove beyond any doubt that petitioner No. 1 has been and continues to be the sole proprietor of the business run from the demised premises. It is also urged that the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the respondents application for additional evidence. It is then contended that the additional evidence sought to be produced was to the limited extent of proving the original of application mark A, whereas the Appellate Authority at its own has improved the case of the respondent by summoning the court witnesses and some official record beyond the pleaded case of the respondent. Additionally, it is also argued that even if the additional evidence is taken into account, yet the allegation of sub-letting remains unsubstantiated. Case-law has also been referred to and relied upon by the learned Counsel in support of each one of his contentions noticed above. 14. Contrary to it, learned Counsel for the Respondent has justified the Appellate Authoritys order permitting to lead additional evidence which, according to the learned Counsel, was required to arrive at a just conclusion. He placed great reliance upon the document Ex.PX which is of prior in time than the filing of the eviction petition. It was canvassed that petitioner No. 1 came up with a specific plea that he was joint in food and shelter with petitioner No. 2 and they constitute a Joint Hindu Family, however, he miserably failed to prove the same, though the respondent has established otherwise. On this premise, it is argued that petitioner No. 1 concealed the material facts, therefore, his eviction on the ground of sub-letting is fully justified in law. Learned Counsel for the Respondent too has placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of: (i) Kala and Anr. v. Madho Parshad Vaidya (1998) 6 S.C.C. 575; (ii) Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amar Kaur; and (iii) Ashwani Kumar Prasher and Anr. v. Anil Kapoor. 15. Section 13(2)(ii) of the Act contemplates that if a tenant, without the written consent of the landlord, has transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building rented out or any portion thereof, makes himself liable for eviction. Thus, surrendering of possession of the rented premises exclusively in favour of a third party is an essential ingredient to prove sub-letting. Thus, surrendering of possession of the rented premises exclusively in favour of a third party is an essential ingredient to prove sub-letting. Parting with possession would mean giving possession to a person other than the one to whom possession had been given by the lessor. User by other person of a premises has not been held to be parting with possession so long as the tenant continues to retain the legal possession with himself. In other words, unless it is proved that the tenant has not only vested the right of possession in another person by divesting himself of the physical possession but also the right to retain possession, the possession shall deem to be with the original tenant. Presumption of sub-letting cannot be drawn so long as actual control over the premises is kept by the tenant. It is also well known that mere induction of a family member into business which is being run jointly by the original tenant and that family member, does not amount to surrendering the possessory rights by the tenant in favour of the inductee. 16. However, merely because the sub-tenant happens to be a family member of the tenant, is no ground to presume that there is no sub-letting. Contrary to it, if a tenant has parted with the possession and has surrendered his right to retain possession of the tenanted premises in favour of a family member, it shall tantamount to sub-letting as proof of payment of monetary consideration is not a sine-qua-non to establish sub-letting. 17. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be seen that both the parties have led oral evidence against each other. No reliance need be placed on the oral evidence, the veracity of which in such like cases cannot be accepted as the last truth, more so when there is enough documentary evidence on record to arrive at a definite conclusion. 18. The respondent-landlord has placed heavy reliance upon the document Ex.PX, which is Form ST-15 issued on 23.6.1976. This Form appears to have been signed by Sunil Kumar-petitioner No. 2. While relying upon the same, the Appellate Authority completely overlooked the fact that the form expressly stipulates that it can be signed by the "producer/dealer or his authorized agent". 18. The respondent-landlord has placed heavy reliance upon the document Ex.PX, which is Form ST-15 issued on 23.6.1976. This Form appears to have been signed by Sunil Kumar-petitioner No. 2. While relying upon the same, the Appellate Authority completely overlooked the fact that the form expressly stipulates that it can be signed by the "producer/dealer or his authorized agent". It is indeed not in dispute that petitioner No. 2 has been oftenly sitting on the shop along with petitioner No. 1 in order to help his brother to run the business of crockery, besides looking after his own business of watch repairs. If petitioner No. 2 had signed a few forms as an authorized agent of his brother, it cannot be inferred from such documents that the possession of the demised premises or the entire business stood transferred/surrendered by the first petitioner in favour of petitioner No. 2. 19. The other document heavily relied upon by the Appellate Authority is an application purported to have been made by petitioner No. 1 to the Excise & Taxation Department, Bahadurgarh for transferring sales tax registration number in favour of his brother to whom he had allegedly handed over the business. Though the said document has been got exhibited at the appellate stage, however, the original thereof has not been. proved on record. The witness, namely, O.P. Uttam (CW1) has categorically deposed that no order transferring the sales tax licence in favour of the petitioner No. 2 was ever passed and the same continued to be in the name of petitioner No. 1 only. Assuming that the said application was moved by petitioner No. 1, it was at the best a decision taken by him to transfer the business to his brother which, however, never materialized. No conclusive inference of parting with the possession in favour of petitioner No. 2, therefore, can be drawn from this document. 20. This takes us to the assessment orders Ex.CX, RX and CX/1. It is true that O.P. Uttam, CW1 has deposed that in the assessment orders for the year 1976-77 and 1978-79, the presence of the Sunil Kumar, petitioner No. 2, has been marked as proprietor of M/s Jain Crockery House. The said witness, however, has candidly admitted that in the assessment orders for the year 1977-78 and 1979-80, Sunil Kumar is marked present as brother of the proprietor. The said witness, however, has candidly admitted that in the assessment orders for the year 1977-78 and 1979-80, Sunil Kumar is marked present as brother of the proprietor. Petitioner No. 1 has explained that mystery in his deposition as according to him he used to send his brother, namely, petitioner No. 2 being better educated to attend the sale-tax proceedings before the assessment authorities. Mere recording of presence of petitioner No. 2 as proprietor of the business concern in one or two quasi judicial orders, cannot be taken as a conclusive proof of sub-letting of the demised premises in his favour, especially when the said quasi-judicial authority has stepped into witness box and explained that petitioner No. 1 continued to be the sole proprietor of the business concern. 21. In my considered view the Appellate Authority grossly erred in observing that an adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioners due to non-production of the accounts books by them. The stage to draw such an inference could arise only when the respondent-landlord had successfully discharged his burden of proof of parting with the possession by petitioner No. 1 in favour of a third party, namely, petitioner No. 2. 22. On the other hand, the petitioners have placed on record the assessment order for the year 1979-80 (Ex.C1) to suggest that petitioner No. 1 was the sole proprietor of M/s Jain Crockery House and is assessed in his individual capacity. The sales tax licence issued by the Assessing Authority, Rohtak dated 14.3.1974 (Ex.P2) is also in favour of petitioner No. 1 being the sole proprietor of the crockery business. To the same effect is to form ST-4 (Ex.R3) as well as Forms B&F (Ex.R4 and R5). The municipal record, i.e., the house tax assessment register for the year 1978-79 (Ex.R6) also depicts petitioner No. 1 as the tenant of the subject shop. In the light of the aforesaid evidence on record, it would be too far fetched to hold that petitioner No. 1 had completely surrendered the possession of the demises premises in favour of his brother, namely, petitioner No. 2. The basic ingredient of sub-letting, thus, has not been established. The findings returned by the Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot sustain and are liable to be reversed. Ordered accordingly. 23. The basic ingredient of sub-letting, thus, has not been established. The findings returned by the Appellate Authority, therefore, cannot sustain and are liable to be reversed. Ordered accordingly. 23. Since the respondent-landlord has not been able to make out a case of sub-letting by petitioner No. 1 in favour of petitioner No. 2 even after taking into consideration the additional evidence led by him before the Appellate Authority, I need not to go into the allied questions as to whether the Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in permitting the respondent to lead additional evidence and/or holding suo moto inquiry to find out the contents of the application Mark A. 24. Similarly, the Civil Misc. application moved by the petitioners during the pendency of this Revision Petition, to place on record some subsequent statements/orders passed by the Rent Controller/the Appellate Authority, are not required to be referred to. The said application is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous. 25. For the reasons afore-stated, this Revision Petition is allowed, the impugned order 28.8.1982 is set aside and the eviction petition filed by the respondent is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.