JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.: - Respondent/landlords filed an eviction petition against the petitioners inter alia on the grounds of change of user, subletting and non-payment of rent. Respondents resisted the petition and denied all the grounds raised by landlords. In support of the case, petitioner Pawan Kumar stepped into the witness-box as AW1. Respondent Mohinder Singh himself stepped into the witness-box as RW1 and examined two other witnesses. Rent Controller framed five issues. The ground of nonpayment of rent did not survive as rent was tendered. It, however, came to the conclusion that premises had been sublet by Mohinder Singh to Ashok Kumar. It found that premises was occupied by respondent No.2. Thus, it could not be said that tenant had seized to occupy the premises. On the issue of change of user it found that premises was originally rented out for sale of general spare parts but was being used exclusively for denting and painting. Thus, user of the premises had been changed. On this basis, Rent Controller ordered eviction of the tenants. Findings were unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate authority. Aggrieved, present revision petition has been filed before this court. 2. Mr. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is a partnership between Mohinder Singh and Ashok Kumar and thus, there was no question of subletting. According to him, denting and painting are integral part of business of sale of spare parts. Both the courts had, thus, erred in holding that there was change of user of the premises. 3. Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for landlords submitted that as Mohinder Singh had parted with possession of the premises in favour of Ashok Kumar, there can be no doubt that he had sublet the premises. This apart, the shop was being exclusively used for denting and painting which was not the purpose, for which it was rented out. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. 5. It is evident that on the question of subletting, tenant relied upon partnership deed Ex.R1. In his cross-examination respondent No.1 admitted that he was running a business in the name and style of M/s Supreme Automobiles. The trial court found that after execution of alleged partnership deed Ex.R1, no change was effected in the record of Sale Tax Department. 5. It is evident that on the question of subletting, tenant relied upon partnership deed Ex.R1. In his cross-examination respondent No.1 admitted that he was running a business in the name and style of M/s Supreme Automobiles. The trial court found that after execution of alleged partnership deed Ex.R1, no change was effected in the record of Sale Tax Department. The stand of the tenant Mohinder Singh that Ashok Kumar had contributed Rs.1.00 lac as partnership, was also found to be false as no record was produced in this regard. Ashok Kumar in his cross-examination stated that at the time of entering into partnership, no list of articles lying in the shop was prepared. The court, thus, came to the conclusion that Ex.R1 had been prepared merely to create defence. On the issue of change of user RW1 stated that denting and painting were being carried out in addition to the business of general spare parts. Same stand was taken by Ashok Kumar. Tenant Mohinder Singh was not able to produce any proof to show that he was selling spare parts in the demised premises. Even stock of such items was not produced before the court. The courts below, thus, came to the conclusion that user of the premises had been changed. It was being used exclusively for denting and painting business. Under the circumstances, they ordered eviction of the petitioners. 6. I find no ground to interfere with concurrent findings of two courts below. Revision petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------