JUDGMENT Tapan Kumar Dutt, J. This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and has considered the relevant materials on record. The facts of the case, very briefly, are as follows: The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 251 of 2000 and such suit was placed before the learned First Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandannagore. The plaintiff/appellant, in the said suit, prayed for a decree for eviction against the defendant/respondent and recovery of khas possession. The said suit was brought by the plaintiff/appellant on the ground of default in payment of rent on the part of the defendant/respondent, nuisance and annoyance caused by the defendant/respondent, reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff/appellant and also sub-letting of the suit premises by the defendant/respondent in favour of a third party. 2. The defendant/respondent contested the said suit denying the material allegations made in the plaint. The said suit came up for hearing when the learned Trial Court by its judgement and decree dated 31st January, 2002 decreed the said suit only on the ground that the defendant/respondent was found to have sublet the suit premises in favour of a third party. 3. The defendant/respondent preferred Title Appeal No. 71 of 2002 challenging the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and the said Title Appeal was placed before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Second Court, Chandannagore. The learned First Appellate Court by its judgement and decree dated 15th December, 2005 allowed the said Title Appeal and set aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and, thus, the suit was dismissed. 4. The plaintiff/appellant, challenging the impugned judgement and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, has preferred the present Second Appeal which was admitted for hearing by an order dated 25th July, 2007 passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 4. The plaintiff/appellant, challenging the impugned judgement and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court, has preferred the present Second Appeal which was admitted for hearing by an order dated 25th July, 2007 passed by an Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The instant Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law “(a) whether the learned Court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in reversing the judgement and decree passed by the learned trial judge on the ground of subs-letting by totally overlooking the admission of the tenant/defendant that he was in service and that he knew that for the purpose of running a business of selling rice, trade licence is required to be taken from Municipality which he took when he used to run the business for selling tea; (b) In the absence of any document produced by the tenant/defendant that he has Municipal trade licence for running the business for selling rice coupled with the fact that he is in service, whether the learned court of appeal below committed substantial error of law in not drawing adverse inference against the tenant/defendant for non-production of trade licence for selling rice” 5. It appears from the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties that the only issue that is required to be decided in the present appeal is the issue of sub-letting. 6. The learned Trial Court found in its judgement that PW-1 has stated that the defendant/respondent has parted with possession of the suit premises to another person and P.W. 2 has also stated that he saw another person is running the shop of rice business but such evidence of P.W. 2 has not been challenged by the defendant/respondent nor any suggestion denying the said statement of P.W. 2 was put forward by the defendant/respondent. The learned Trial Court was of the view that there is no reason to disbelieve the plaintiff on the point of sub-letting. The learned Trial Court further found that the defendant/respondent has admitted that though the rice business was started two years ago, the defendant/respondent has not as yet obtained any trade licence from the Municipality. The learned Trial Court was of the view that absence of the trade licence in respect of the rice business is supportive of the allegation that the suit premises was sub-tenanted. The learned Trial Court was of the view that absence of the trade licence in respect of the rice business is supportive of the allegation that the suit premises was sub-tenanted. The learned Trial Court observed that had the rice business been in the name of the defendant/respondent, there would not have been any laches on the part of the defendant/respondent to obtain a trade licence in respect of such rice business. The learned Trial Court thus decreed the suit on the ground of sub-letting. 7. The learned First Appellate Court was of the view that since the P.W. 2, who is also a tenant in the suit building, could not mention the name of the person who had been allegedly running the rice business and also since it is of no consequence as to whether or not the defendant/respondent had any licence to run a shop for selling rice and also since a mere physical presence of a third party in the premises is not sufficient to prove sub-letting and also since a statement simplicitor that somebody else was running the rice business is not enough to hold that such person has exclusive possession of the suit property, it cannot be said that the ground of sub-letting has been proved by the plaintiff/appellant. The learned First Appellate Court further observed that it does not find any justification in holding that the defendant/respondent actually parted with the exclusive possession of the suit property inspite of the fact that the Tea Stall has been converted to a shop for selling rice. The learned First Appellate Court laid much emphasis on the fact that the plaintiff and her witness could not mention the name of the person who is running the said rice business. 8. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff/appellant submitted that the records would show that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that at one point of time the defendant/respondent had been running the business of selling tea from the suit property but, subsequently, he joined service and the tea business is not in existence in the suit property and has not been in existence in the suit property ever since the defendant/respondent joined service. The said learned Advocate further submitted that there cannot also be any dispute with regard to the fact that a third party is running a business of selling rice from the suit property. The said learned Advocate submitted that the onus shifted to the defendant - respondent to show as to who is running the said business. The said learned Advocate referred to the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and also to evidence of D.W. 1 to emphasise the admitted facts. The said learned Advocate also submitted that there is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the defendant- respondent could not produce any trade licence in respect of the said business of selling rice but at one point of time the defendant-respondent had trade licence when he was selling tea from the suit property. The said learned Advocate submitted that it is true that sub-letting may not always be easy to prove, but then the Court has to take into consideration the circumstantial evidence while dealing with the point of sub-letting. The said learned Advocate for the plaintiff-appellant has submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly observed that the evidence on the part of the plaintiff- appellant that a third party is running the shop of rice business has not been challenged by the defendant- respondent nor any effective cross-examination has been done on behalf of the defendant-respondent in this regard. The said learned Advocate referred to a decision reported at A.I.R. 1961 Calcutta 359 (A.E.G. Carapiet Vs. A.Y. Derderian) and referred to paragraph – 10 of the said reports wherein it has been observed that wherever an opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. The said learned Advocate cited another decision reported at 86 C.W.N. 938 (Santosh Kumar Bhatteacharjee Vs. Sachindra Nath Saha) and referred to paragraph – 7 of the said reports. The said paragraph – 7 is quoted below : “7. The next question is whether this is a sub tenancy or not. The word ‘sub- let’ according to the decision reported in AIR 1974 Bombay 189 (Dattatraya Kaluram Jadnab Vs. Sachindra Nath Saha) and referred to paragraph – 7 of the said reports. The said paragraph – 7 is quoted below : “7. The next question is whether this is a sub tenancy or not. The word ‘sub- let’ according to the decision reported in AIR 1974 Bombay 189 (Dattatraya Kaluram Jadnab Vs. Narayan Das Badri Das Hathi) is of wider amplitude and takes in the letting even to licencees or their occupation at the instance of the tenant either for some considerations like rent or premium will come within the mischief of the word ‘sub-let’. In the case reported in AIR 1974 SC 208 (Smt. Krishna Wati Vs. Hansraj) it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the landlord is able to prove parting of the exclusive possession then inference of sub-letting can reasonably be drawn. It was further held by the decision reported in 1977(2) CLJ 153 (Anath Bandhu Vs. Ashim) and 82 CWN 695 (Ram Vs. Khajan) that it is very difficult to prove directly sub-letting and then circumstantial evidence for the purpose of drawing the necessary inferences and the intention of the parties are to be considered. Once it has been proved by the plaintiff that there are some other persons in possession of the part of the premises, it is for the tenant to prove that there is no sub tenant. In the present case it is admitted by the defendant that there are other persons who are in possession of the part of the portion on payment of some money ‘said to be as paying guest’. In view of the circumstances stated above, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises and Tenancy Act.” 9. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant-respondent submitted that P.W. 2 is an interested witness as he has been asked by the plaintiff-appellant to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant and the P.W. 1 and 2 are not truthful witnesses as they have made some contradictory statements while giving evidence on the point of reasonable requirement of the plaintiff- appellant in respect of the suit property. It is true that the P.W. 2 came to depose on behalf of the plaintiff- appellant on being requested by the plaintiff-appellant to give evidence but it does not necessarily mean that whatever the said P.W. 2 has stated are incorrect. It is true that the P.W. 2 came to depose on behalf of the plaintiff- appellant on being requested by the plaintiff-appellant to give evidence but it does not necessarily mean that whatever the said P.W. 2 has stated are incorrect. The evidence has to be read as a whole and if it appears to the Court that the evidence of P.W. 2 is believable, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be proper to hold that the evidence of such witness should not be looked into at all. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the plaintiff-witnesses had given any contradictory evidence on the point of reasonable requirement of the suit premises by the plaintiff-appellant, the entire evidence of the plaintiff-witnesses cannot be discarded particularly when such contradiction, if any, do not in any way affect the evidence of the witnesses on the point of sub-letting. 10. The learned Advocate for the defendant-respondent submitted that the plaintiff-appellant has not been able to prove that the defendant-respondent has handed over the suit property to a third party and none of the plaintiff-witnesses could mention the name of the sub-lessee. The said learned Advocate further submitted that no commission was held to prove the point of sub-letting. This Court is of the view that such submissions on the part of the learned Advocate for the defendant-respondent is without any substance when it appears from the records that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that a third party is in possession of the suit property and such third party is running the business of selling rice from the suit property and nothing need be further proved to show that the defendant- respondent has handed over the possession of the suit property to such third party. The question as to whether or not the plaintiff- witnesses could mention the name of the sub-tenant does not make much difference. Whatever be the name of the sub- tenant, it is the fact of sub- letting that is required to be proved by the plaintiff-appellant. The name of the said sub-tenant is immaterial. The question as to whether or not the plaintiff- witnesses could mention the name of the sub-tenant does not make much difference. Whatever be the name of the sub- tenant, it is the fact of sub- letting that is required to be proved by the plaintiff-appellant. The name of the said sub-tenant is immaterial. The question of holding commission work to prove sub-letting in the present case also does not arise as the defendant-respondent does not dispute the fact that originally he was running the business of selling tea from the suit property but, subsequently, he has joined service and there is a third party who is running the said business of selling rice from the suit property. Thus the question of holding any commission work to prove sub-letting does not arise. The said learned Advocate for the defendant/respondent submitted that it can very well be that the defendant/respondent has changed his business from selling tea to selling rice. Such submission also is without any substance as the defendant/respondent has admitted that he is now in service and he has not produced any trade licence in his name in connection with the said rice selling business. According to the said learned Advocate, the mere fact that the defendant/respondent could not produce a trade licence in his favour in respect of the said rice selling business does not prove that there has been sub-letting. 11. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and having considered the materials on record, this Court is of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the defendant/respondent, at one point of time, used to sell tea from the suit property but subsequently he has joined service. In his evidence (taken some time in December, 2001) the defendant/respondent has stated in cross-examination that he has got his service in a Mill about five to six years back. It is not believable that the defendant/respondent while discharging his duties as a full time employee in a Mill will also be running rice selling business from the suit property. The defendant/respondent has not disputed the fact that a third party is running the said rice selling business in the suit property. It is also undisputed that the defendant/respondent could not produce any trade licence in his name in respect of such rice selling business. 12. The defendant/respondent has not disputed the fact that a third party is running the said rice selling business in the suit property. It is also undisputed that the defendant/respondent could not produce any trade licence in his name in respect of such rice selling business. 12. It will appear from the observations made in the said reports (86 CWN 938) that the learned Advocate for the plaintiff/appellant is right in his submissions that once it has been proved that a third party is in possession of the suit property, it is for the defendant/respondent to prove that such third party is not a sub-tenant in the suit property. 13. In the instant case, the defendant/respondent could not show that he has been running the said rice business in the suit property and that the said third party is not a sub- tenant. The learned First Appellate Court was not correct in holding that it has not been proved that the defendant/respondent has parted with exclusive possession of the shop room in favour of the third party. The learned First Appellate Court was of the view that the Tea Stall might have been converted to a shop for selling rice. Since the defendant/respondent was having a trade licence while running his tea business, the said defendant/respondent could have obtained a trade licence for the purpose of running the rice business but the defendant/respondent has not done so. This obviously shows that the rice business does not belong to the defendant/respondent who has joined service after closing his tea business. The presence of the third party in the suit room cannot be described as a mere physical presence of a person as observed by the learned First Appellate Court. The presence of such third party in the suit property is for the purpose of running full fledged rice selling business and it is immaterial whether the name of such third party is known to the plaintiff/appellant or not. The material fact, is that the presence of such third party in the suit property, is undisputed and such presence is for a purpose i.e. to run the business of selling rice. 14. The defendant/respondent has not come forward with the case that the said third party is in any way related to him or that out of love and affection he has allowed the third party to run the rice selling business. 14. The defendant/respondent has not come forward with the case that the said third party is in any way related to him or that out of love and affection he has allowed the third party to run the rice selling business. It appears from the materials on record that ever since the defendant/respondent got his service in the Mill concerned, the defendant/respondent has parted with exclusive possession of the suit property in favour of the third party for the purpose of earning an income from such transaction. This would be the logical conclusion. This is what the circumstantial evidence in the present case would lead one to conclude. 15. In the context of the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that the learned First Appellate Court was not correct in dismissing the suit and allowing the appeal. This Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court was correct in decreeing the suit on the ground of sub-letting. 16. In such circumstances, the present Second Appeal is disposed of by setting aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court and restoring the judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. 17. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 18. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned Court concerned immediately. Urgent certified xerox copy of this judgement, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.