JUDGMENT SUNIL AMBWANI, J.-Heard Sri Manish Goyal for Life Insurance Corporation of India, the petitioner. Sri R.B. Singhal appears for respondent No. 2/1 to 2/4 and respondent No. 3/1. 2. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Central Zone Office, Kanpur-2, the Mall, Kanpur has preferred this writ petition, against by the judgment and order dated 19.3.1991 passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar under section 9 of the U.P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 (in short the Act of 1971), by which the appeal was allowed and while setting aside 'the order of the Prescribed Authority it was held that the respondents are not liable to be evicted from the shop. The appellate authority, however, made the Corporation entitled to arrears of rent with effect from 1.7.1976. 3. Sri Ram Gopal, the tenant, and Sri Govind Jaiswal, the respondent No.3, impleaded as sub tenant of the shop, died during the pendency of the writ petition, and were substituted by their heirs by order dated 1.11.2007 and 15.2.2008 respectively. 4. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short the Corporation) owns building No. 127 on the Mall Road, Kanpur which includes shop No.6, a corner shop with two doors, one of which opens on the Mall Road and the other in a lane and quarter No.7' in the building. The shop No.2 was let out to Ram Gopal on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/. On an inspection made by Sri L.D. Kandpal, the caretaker of the building appointed by the Corporation, it was found that Late Ram Gopal had divided the shop into two portion without the permission and consent of the Corporation, and has sub let the front portion towards the Mall Road to Sri Har Govind Jaiswal, the respondent No.3. Sri Har Govind Jaiswal has started an independent business in the name and style of "New Jaisons Wine Merchant' selling English Wine in the sub-let portion of the shop. Sri Ram Gopal continued with his business of selling ice candies in the rear portion. On this report of Sri R.N. Shukla, the Assistant Administrative Officer in the Estate Department of the Corporation, inspected the premises on 23.6.1976 and found the report of Sri L.D. Kandpal to be correct. He submitted his own report on 23.6.1976. Sri Ram Gopal continued with his business of selling ice candies in the rear portion. On this report of Sri R.N. Shukla, the Assistant Administrative Officer in the Estate Department of the Corporation, inspected the premises on 23.6.1976 and found the report of Sri L.D. Kandpal to be correct. He submitted his own report on 23.6.1976. The Corporation gave separate notices dated 26.7.1976 to late Sri Ram Gopal and also to late Sri Govind Jaiswal. By the notice the Corporation terminated the tenancy of Late Sri Ram Gopal and directed him to vacate the accommodation as they had become unauthorised occupants of the public premises. The notices were served on 31.7.1976, and the application was filed under section 4 (7) of the Act of 1971, before the Prescribed Authority seeking the eviction of the unauthorised occupants. 5. The notices sent by the Prescribed Authority were duly served on both the tenant and sub tenant. Late Ram Gopal, the tenant, filed objections to the notice stating that he is tenant in occupation of shop No.6 and quarter No.7 of premises No .127, the Mall, Kanpur @ Rs. 100/- per month. He denied that he had sub let a portion of the shop to opposite party No.2 for running the wine shop in the name and style of 'New Jaisons Wine Merchant'. The notice was based on false and baseless allegations. The notice was illegal and uncalled for. The opposite party No.2 was not the sub tenant and was not in possession of the shop. In para 7 the sub letting was denied. In the additional pleas it was stated in para 11 as follows : "11. That the opposite party No.1 entered into a partnership for carrying on a business of Foreign liquor with the permission of the District Magistrate, Kanpur. However, the said business was closed down in the very beginning. The opposite party No.2 was not a sub-tenant of the opposite party No. 1." 6. Sri L.D. Kandpal and Sri R.N. Shukla were examined by the Corporation in support of the allegations. They proved the sub tenancy. Sri L.D. Kandpal stated that he is serving in the Life Insurance Corporation of India and is working in the Estate Department from 1972. Sri L.D. Kandpal and Sri R.N. Shukla were examined by the Corporation in support of the allegations. They proved the sub tenancy. Sri L.D. Kandpal stated that he is serving in the Life Insurance Corporation of India and is working in the Estate Department from 1972. His main job in the Estate Department was to look-after the cleanliness of the office; the server land; taking electrical meter reading and periodical inspections of Life Insurance Corporation of India's properties a Kanpur and to check-up if there are any unauthorised constructions etc. When he inspected the building No. 127, the Mall, Kanpur in June, 1976, he found that in the shop 'Jo. 6 there was a board denoting a wine shop. He enquired about it from Sri Rim Gopal, the tenant of shop No.6, about the new wine shop, he was given to understand that the shop belonged to him and when he enquired about this from other people, he came to know that some Govind Jaiswal had opened the shop. He discussed the matter further with Sri Ram Gopal and was given to understand that Jaiswal was his partner. On 23.6.1976 he again visited the shop and gave a report to the office regarding the sign board. The report dated 22.6.1976 and 23.6.1976 Exts. 1 and 2 were proved by him to be in his own handwriting and signed by him. On a question put by the Enquiry Officer, Sri L.D. Kandpal stated that he requested Sri Ram Gopal to submit partnership deed but it was not shown to him. He does not know if it was submitted in the office and that he came to know, on enquiry, that Sri Ram Gopal had given that shop to Sri Govind Jaiswal after taking 'Pagri' of Rs. 30,000/-. He had no personal knowledge about it. Sri Kandpal admitted that he did not enquire about the rent given by Sri Ram Gopal. 7. Sri R.N. Shukla, the Administrative Officer stated that he was Assistant Administrative Officer (Estate) Zonal Office, Kanpur from September, 1972 to July, 1978. His duty was to inspect the properties of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Kanpur. Sri L.D. Kandpal was Caretaker of Life Insurance Corporation of• India properties. Sri L.D. Kandpal had submitted a report of inspection in which he stated about unauthorised occupation and sub letting to a third party. His duty was to inspect the properties of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Zonal Office, Kanpur. Sri L.D. Kandpal was Caretaker of Life Insurance Corporation of• India properties. Sri L.D. Kandpal had submitted a report of inspection in which he stated about unauthorised occupation and sub letting to a third party. The witness stated that he had inspected the premises in June, 1976. Sri Ram Gopal met him at the time of Inspection. He found that the report of the Caretaker was correct. There was a wine shop In front portion of the shop No; 6, and there was a sign board displayed at the shop In the name and style of 'New Jalsons Wine Merchant', Sri Ram Gopal told him that he had started a wine shop in partnership with Sri Har Govind Jalswal who Is also his relative. The man of Har Govlnd Jalswal standing at the counter of the shop told that Ram Gopal had nothing to do with the shop as Sri Har Govlnd Jalswal was the sole owner of the shop and he had taken the shop by giving Rs. 30,000/- to Sri Ram Gopal as 'Pagri'. This witness proved the enquiry report. 8. Late Sri Ram Gopal, the opposite party, did not lead any evidence. The Prescribed Authority by his order dated 22.4.1982 found that the legal notices were valid and proper. The tenancy was determined after expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice. The opposite party No.2 did not choose to file objections. He found that the two witnesses had proved the sub letting of a portion of the shop to one Sri Bar Govind for running wine shop in the name and style of 'New Jalsons Wine Merchant'. In the additional pleas Sri Ram Gopal, the tenant, had admitted that he entered into partnership deed for carrying on a business of Foreign liquor which, according to him, was closed down. The Corporation vide its letter L&M/5 dated 2.9.1976 (paper No. 22) had requested the opposite party No. 1 lo submit the original partnership deed which as per record available does not appear to have been submitted. 9. The Corporation vide its letter L&M/5 dated 2.9.1976 (paper No. 22) had requested the opposite party No. 1 lo submit the original partnership deed which as per record available does not appear to have been submitted. 9. The Prescribed Authority found that the tenancy was validly terminated by notice in exercise of power under section 9 of Act of 1971 directed that both opposite No.1 and 2 may be evicted from the shop No.6 quarter No.7 of the building. 10. Sri Ram Gopal filed Misc. Appeal No. 149 of 1982 which remained pending for a long time. It was decided and allowed on 19.3.1991. The appellate authority found that the premises In dispute are public premises and that the tenancy was proved but the sub tenancy was not proved by the Corporation. The burden to prove that the tenant Sri Ram Gopal had sub let the shop to opposite party No. 3 was on the Corporation. In Deepak Benerjee v. Lilatwati Chakraborty, 1 1988 ACI 32 (SC) the Supreme Court had held that the burden to prove sub-tenancy was on the landlord and held that the partition of the premises and the realisation of rent by the tenant from sub tenant was to be proved by the Corporation, He also relied upon Habibur Ralt1nan v. Smt, Shakuntala Devi 1 AIR 1983 Alld. 126. and Ajit Singlt v. Nnresh Chandra Gupta 2 AIR 1981 Alld 332, in which it was held that the sub letting must be proved by direct evidence. 11. Sri L.D. Kandpal had stated that he had no personal knowledge of the realisation of rent by the tenant from the sub tenant. During the pendency of the appeal the tenant had filed a letter date 2.7.1973 of the District Magistrate in which both the opposite parties were found to be carrying on wine business in partnership. This evidence proved .that the shop was not sub let by opposite party No.1 to opposite party No.2. The fact that the permission was given to someone to reside was not the proof of sub letting. Aggrieved by order allowing the appeal, the Corporation has preferred this writ petition. 12. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation had proved the sub letting. The fact that the permission was given to someone to reside was not the proof of sub letting. Aggrieved by order allowing the appeal, the Corporation has preferred this writ petition. 12. Sri Manish Goyal, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Corporation had proved the sub letting. The shop was divided into two portions and that the part opening towards the Mall Road was used by Sri Har Govind for selling wine in the name and style of 'New Jaisons Wine Merchant'. The tenant did not reply to the notice terminating his tenancy and had admitted. in para 11 of the objection in the additional pleas that the business of selling foreign liquor was carried with the permission of the District Magistrate. He also alleged that the opposite party No.1 had entered into partnership for carrying on business and that the opposite party No.2 was not sub tenant of opposite party No. 1. He, however, did not submit the partnership deed to prove that the business was being run as a partnership business in which both opposite party No.1 and 2 were partners. Sri Manish Gopal submitted that the partition of the shop and the business of selling foreign liquor was admitted. The Corporation as such proved that a stranger was allowed to occupy the premises without its permission. The burden to prove that in fact Sri Ram Gopal entered into partnership business with Sri Har Govind Jaiswal, and that there was no sub letting by parting of possession and payment of rent by sub tenant to the tenant. He would further submit that once a notice was given terminating the tenancy which was month to month basis, the tenant and any person who were in possession became unauthorised occupant and were liable to be evicted. He would submit that it was not necessary to prove sub tenancy which was one of the grounds on which the tenancy was terminated. In the notice dated 23.7.1976 which was served upon the tenant after making a mention of sub letting, the tenancy was terminated. The sub letting was proved but that without proving the sub letting, once the tenancy was terminated, the tenant become unauthorised occupant and was liable to be evicted under the Act of 1971. In the notice dated 23.7.1976 which was served upon the tenant after making a mention of sub letting, the tenancy was terminated. The sub letting was proved but that without proving the sub letting, once the tenancy was terminated, the tenant become unauthorised occupant and was liable to be evicted under the Act of 1971. He has relied upon the judgment in Jiwan Dass v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others 3 1994 Supp (3) SCC 694, in which it was held that the notice under section 106 of T.P. Act does not contemplate to give any reason for terminating the tenancy; The definition of Public Premises Unauthorised Occupants under section 2 (g) of the Act postulates that the tenancy has been determined for any reason whatsoever'. Para 4 of the judgment reads as follows: "4. Section 106 of the T.P. Act does indicate the t the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy by giving 15 day's notice, if it is a premises occupied on monthly tenancy and by giving 6 months notice if the premises are occupied for agricultural or manufacturing purposes, and on expiry thereof proceedings could be initiated. Section 106 of the T.P. Act does not contemplate of giving any reason for terminating the tenancy. Equally the definition of the public premises 'unauthorised occupation' under section 2 (g) of the Act postulates that the tenancy "has been determined for any reason whatsoever". When the statute has advisedly given wide powers to the public authorities under the Act to determine the tenancy, it is not permissible to cut down the width of the powers by reading into it the reasonable and justifiable grounds for initiating action for terminating the tenancy under section 106 of the T.P. Act. If it is so read section 106 of T.P. Act and section 2 (g) of the Act would become ultra vires. The statute advisedly empowered the authority to act in the public interest and determine the tenancy or leave or licence before taking action under section 5 of the Act. If the contention of the appellant is given acceptance he would be put on a higher pedestal than a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. Take for example that a premises is let out at a low rent years back like the present one. The rent is unrealistic. If the contention of the appellant is given acceptance he would be put on a higher pedestal than a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. Take for example that a premises is let out at a low rent years back like the present one. The rent is unrealistic. With a view to revise adequate market rent, tenant became liable to ejectment. The contention then is, action is violative of Article 21 offending right to livelihood. This contention too is devoid of any substance. An owner is entitled to deal with his property in his own way profitable in its use and occupation. A public authority is equally entitled to use the public property to the best advantage as a commercial venture. As an integral incidence of ejectment of a tenant/licensee is inevitable. So the doctrine of livelihood cannot indiscriminately be extended to the area of commercial operation. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contentions of the appellant. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs." 13. Sri R.B. Singhal, on the other hand, submits that the sub letting was not established. In the notice the tenancy was sought to be terminated on the ground of sub letting. The admission by the tenant in the additional pleas in his objection was qualified. The tenant has stated that he entered into partnership with Sri Har Govind Jaiswal and that the shop was closed. The permission of the District Magistrate to the partnership firm was produced as evidence in appeal. The ingredients of sub letting was not proved as no exclusive possession was given nor there was any proof of payment of rent as consideration of sub tenancy. He has relied upon Deepak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty 1 1988 (1) ARC 254 (SC) and Ajit Singh v. Naresh Chandra Gupta 2 1981 ARC 52 Sri Singhal would submit that when the tenancy was terminated on the ground of sub letting, which was not proved, the submission that a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act did not require any reasons to be given, has no significance. There may be no reason required for giving a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for terminating the tenancy, but once the reasons are given and are not established by the evidence, the notice became bad in law and would not terminate the tenancy, to treat the tenant as unauthorised occupant. 14. In Deepak Banerjee (supra), the Supreme Court held that the parting of the possession and its enjoyment exclusively by the sub tenant and the payment of rent as consideration for sub tenancy are the two ingredients which must be established to prove sub tenancy. There must be evidence to prove that the tenant did not retain control over the premises which were sub let and that the rent was paid by sub tenant to the tenant. In Ajit Singh, this Court followed Smt. Krishnawati v. Shri Hans Raj 1 AIR 1974 SC 280 and Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi v. Sardar Ranjit Singh 2 AIR 1968 SC 933 , in holding that the onus to prove the sub letting was on the landlord who had to show not only that the occupant alleging to be• sub tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises but was there for valuable consideration. The essential ingredients for the finding that the person who is in occupation as a sub tenant are that firstly, he is in exclusive possession and secondly, that he is there for some valuable consideration. 15. In the present case Sri L.D. Kandpal, the Caretaker and Sri R.N. Shukla, the Assistant Administrative Officer, who had inspected the properties of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and appeared as a witness to prove sub letting did not specifically state that Sri Har Govind Jaiswal was in exclusive possession of the portion of the shop on which the board had been in the name and style of 'New Jaisons Wine Merchant'. Both the witnesses stated that on enquiries they came to know that Ram Gopal had given the shop to Govind Jaiswal after taking 'Pagri' of Rs. 30,000/-. They did not find out or stated that there was any arrangement of paying rent in lieu of parting with exclusive possession. There was no direct evidence of taking 'Pagri' of Rs. 30,000/-or the payment of rent in consideration of parting with exclusive possession. 16. 30,000/-. They did not find out or stated that there was any arrangement of paying rent in lieu of parting with exclusive possession. There was no direct evidence of taking 'Pagri' of Rs. 30,000/-or the payment of rent in consideration of parting with exclusive possession. 16. The tenant did not admit that he had parted with possession of the premises or that he had entered into any arrangement with opposite party No. 2 on any consideration. The admission in para 11 in the additional pleas was only to the effect that he has entered into partnership for carrying of a business in the name and style of 'New Jaisons Wine Merchant' with the permission of the District Magistrate. The said business was closed down and the opposite party No.2 was not the sub tenant of opposite party No. 1. The proof of partnership was given by additional evidence in appeal and was accepted by the District Judge. On these facts brought in the evidence it cannot be said that there was sub letting of a part of the premises by the tenant. The twin test of sub letting were not established and thus sub letting could not be the ground for eviction. 17. Now coming to the question that if sub letting was a ground for terminating the tenancy, the authorities under the Act of 1971 were required to consider the grounds taken in the notice under section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act terminating the tenancy for declaring the opposite parties to be unauthorised occupants, it was held in Jiwan Das v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, that section 106 of Transfer of Properties Act does not contemplate giving of any reasons for terminating the tenancy. The tenancy can be terminated without any reasons whatsoever. If reasonable and justifiable ground for initiating action for terminating the tenancy under section 106 Transfer of Property Act is contemplated. Section 106 of T.P. Act and section 2 (g) of the Act of 1971 would become ultra vires. The tenant after terminating the tenancy cannot be put on a higher pedestal than a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. The owner is entitled to use his property in his own way. It was observed that a public authority is equally entitled to use the public properly to the best advantage as a commercial venture. 18. The tenant after terminating the tenancy cannot be put on a higher pedestal than a statutory tenant under the Rent Act. The owner is entitled to use his property in his own way. It was observed that a public authority is equally entitled to use the public properly to the best advantage as a commercial venture. 18. In M/s. Jain Ink Manufacturing Company v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another 3 AIR 1981 SC 670 it was held that the Act of 1971 was passed after the Rent Act, 1959. The Act of 1971 being subsequent to the Rent Act would naturally prevail over the rights of the Rent Act which afford special protection to all the tenants or private landlord or landlords who are neither a Corporation nor Government or corporate bodies. A special category has been curved out under section 25-B which provides for special eviction to landlords who required premises for their personal necessity. 19. The Corporation is not a private individual who is required to prove bona fide need, or any special reason for occupation to its properties. The rent agreement is not placed on record. The month to month tenancy under section 106 of the T.P. Act could be terminated on any ground. Even if the sub letting was not proved by leading evidence on the twin test laid down by the Supreme Court in Deepak Bnnerjee case, once the tenancy was terminated and there was no protection of any statute to the occupation of the tenant or any person who was occupying the premises and was made party to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority the tenant and the other occupant became unauthorised occupants under section 2 (g) of the Act of 1971, and were liable to be evicted. 20. In this case the premises In dispute are situated at the Mall Road In Kanpur City, which is a busy commercial area. The notice given to Late Sri Ram Gopal terminating his tenancy on 26.7.1976 and was served upon him on 31.7.1976. He and his heirs are continuing in the premises even after terminated the tenancy for the last 33 years @ Rs. 100/- p.m. They have enjoyed the premises for sufficiently long time on such a low rent even after terminating their tenancy. He and his heirs are continuing in the premises even after terminated the tenancy for the last 33 years @ Rs. 100/- p.m. They have enjoyed the premises for sufficiently long time on such a low rent even after terminating their tenancy. In view of Jiwntt Dass's case, they are unauthorlsed occupants and have no further right to occupy the premises, and the Corporation is entitled to put the property owned by It to the best commercial use. 21. The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.3.1991 passed by the XII Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar is set aside, and that the order dated 22.4.1982 of the Prescribed Authority is restored. Respondent Nos. 2/1 to 2/4 and 3/1 or anyone else in the occupation of the shop No.6 and quarter No.7, of the premises No. 127, the Mall Road, Kanpur Nagar more particularly described in the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 22.4.1982, are liable and are directed to be evicted. The Corporation is also entitled to realise the entire arrears of rent from the respondent. Petition Allowed.