Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. 1. In this revision petition preferred by the tenant, his eviction from the shop in dispute, inter-alia, on the ground of sub-letting is challenged. Landlord - respondent No. 1 in the petition herein had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (in short the Act) against the tenant (revision petitioner) and respondent No. 2 (alleged sub lessee) on the following grounds:-- "(i) the tenant was in arrears of rent; and, (ii) the tenant had sub-let the shop to respondent No. 2 herein." The Rent Controller holding the tenant to be in arrears of rent as also guilty of subletting the premises to respondent No. 2 herein, ordered ejectment of the tenant on both the grounds. It was on 7.1.2011. 2. In the appeal preferred by the tenant, the Appellate Authority partly accepted the appeal and set aside the eviction on the ground of non payment of rent. But appeal was dismissed qua the ground of subletting. It was vide judgment dated 20.5.2013. Sequelly, the ground of subletting is subsisting against the tenant; there is concurrent finding on this count against the tenant by both the authorities below. 3. In this revision petition, the tenant has claimed that burden of proving subletting is on the landlord and help of the tenant cannot be solicited by the landlord on this count. It is further averred that in absence of positive evidence on this count and there being no material to suggest parting of possession from the revisionist-tenant to respondent No. 2 herein, much less for consideration, findings returned against him are untenable. 4. It is claimed that issue of subletting was not a simple issue of facts but it was primarily of law as not only parting of possession is to be established but even consideration for such parting of possession is to be proved. It is claimed that when it is a case of mis-appreciation of evidence and misconstruction of facts, the entire issue converts into an issue of law. It is claimed that when it is a case of mis-appreciation of evidence and misconstruction of facts, the entire issue converts into an issue of law. Citing Smt. Shashi Jain v. Tarsem Lal (dead) and another, 2009(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 485 : 2009(1) HLR 572 (SC), it is urged that notwithstanding concurrent finding on the question of subletting, High Court is competent to satisfy itself as to whether the question of subletting was properly decided by the courts below keeping into view the facts on record as it is a question of law. 5. Referring to the statement of Ram Parkash P.W. 1 (landlord), as also testimony of Sunil Kumar PW2 (son of the landlord) and yet another witness Rajesh Kumar PW4, it is claimed that neither parting of possession from the tenant to alleged sub-lessee nor passing of any consideration has been proved. It is claimed that both the authorities below had completely misread the evidence. 6. Referring to statement of Amar Singh D.W. 2, it is canvassed by the revisionist-petitioner that inference of subletting has wrongly been drawn merely because this witness had found respondent No. 2 herein in the shop and had not found tenant Ram Niwas to be working therein. Reproducing extracts of testimony of different witnesses in the grounds of revision, it is claimed that the ground of subletting has wrongly been adjudicated against him by both the courts, whereas neither there is any evidence nor material to sustain and support such findings. 7. Claim of the respondent-landlord on the other hand is that there is overwhelming evidence discussed and evaluated by both the authorities under the Act which unfailingly points towards the role of the revisionist tenant in completely parting with the possession of the shop to respondent No. 2 and in addition it is also established that respondent No. 2 is in complete and effective control of the shop as also of the business carried thereon. It is claimed that such findings are in fact unassailable. 8. Going through the impugned orders, grounds of revision as also the facts and circumstances emerging from the paper book, hearing to counsel for the parties has been provided. 9. It is claimed that such findings are in fact unassailable. 8. Going through the impugned orders, grounds of revision as also the facts and circumstances emerging from the paper book, hearing to counsel for the parties has been provided. 9. At the outset, citing Smt. Prem Wati v. Ra-mesh & others, 2003(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 302 : 2003 HRR 509 (P&H), counsel for the revisionist-tenant has urged that respondent No. 2 is not a stranger but is his real brother. Support has also been sought from Shama Prashant Raje v. Ganpatrao and others, 2000(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 431: AIR 2000 SC 3094 . It is also urged that for proving subletting of the premises, three ingredients as mentioned below are to be taken into consideration:-- "(1) time and manner of subletting; (2) exclusive possession of the premises; and, (3) consideration in terms of money." 10. It is claimed that neither there are pleadings nor proof nor cogent and convincing evidence on this count. Seeking support from Shri Gulzar Singh and another v. Shri Chand Gupta, 1986(2) RCR (Rent) 399 (Delhi), it is urged that even where affidavit of the alleged sub-tenant had been filed before the income tax authorities stating therein that he was the sole proprietor of the firm, which was carrying on the business in the premises in dispute and that his brother (tenant) was not the partner in the said firm since the start of the business and there was concurrent finding that ground of subletting was proved, it was held that an admission made by mere occupier on the basis of affidavit was not admissible against the tenant of the shop and could not have been used against him for holding that he had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession. Sequelly, orders of the lower courts had been set aside by the High Court of Delhi as the same was based on inadmissible evidence. 11. Referring to Shri Gulzar Singh and another v. Shri Chand Gupta, 1986(2) RCR (Rent) 399 (Delhi), it is urged that mere presence of a person other than the tenant in the premises would not be sufficient to raise a presumption of subletting as long as actual control over the premises is kept by the tenant. It is thus contended that subletting is to be proved by landlord as a fact and not as a presumption. 12. It is thus contended that subletting is to be proved by landlord as a fact and not as a presumption. 12. Since it is a case of alleged subletting of the premises to his brother by a tenant who was found to have installed an electric connection in the shop in his name and had also always been found to be in possession of the shop as per findings recorded by the authorities below, Counsel for the petitioner has cited multiple authorities where sub-tenant was alleged to be a brother of the tenant. 13. In Muni Lal and others v. Lekh Raj and others, 2000(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 608 : 2000 HRR 633 (P&H), sub-tenant, a brother of the tenant, was found in possession, of course, with permission of the tenant and was a member of Hindu Undivided family. It was held that it was not a case of subletting. In Satish Kumar and another v. Shri Nanu Ram Jain Charitable Trust and another, 2009(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 133 : 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 783 : 2009(4) CCC 498 (P&H), where a tenant had joined his younger brother in business, whereas tenant himself was engaged in cloth business at another premises, it was held to be not a case of subletting, holding, that tenant having business at another place in the same town is an irrelevant fact. In Kishan Lal Vig v. Shri Sunder Lal and another, 1988(1) RCR (Rent) 580, it was a case of a tenant carrying business of photography in the shop where his brothers were assisting him in the job. The tenant was also doing wine business in another shop. Said brothers had opened separate accounts in the bank showing themselves as proprietors. It was held that since there was no parting with possession on part of the tenant, it was not a case of subletting and onus of proving that the tenant had parted with possession of the premises was always on the landlord and if the landlord had failed to discharge the said onus, then the tenant was not required to show in what capacity alleged sub-tenants were occupying the premises. 14. Explaining subletting, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, 1990(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 491: AIR 1990 SC 1208 , has held as under:-- "5. 14. Explaining subletting, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Delhi Stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, 1990(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 491: AIR 1990 SC 1208 , has held as under:-- "5. Under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the tenant is liable to be evicted, if he has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord. Sub-letting means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of the third party and the said right must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or rent. Parting of the legal possession means possession with the right to include and also a right to exclude others. Mere occupation is not sufficient to infer either sub tenancy or parting with possession." 15. In M/s. Rameshchandra K. Patwa v. Vithaldas Chimanlal, 1994 (1) RCR (Rent) 191 (Guj), it was held that if alleged sub-tenants were relatives, brother and, members of Hindu undivided family and were using the same jointly and there was no evidence that the tenant was charging any monetary consideration, such subletting could not be inferred. In a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court reported as Hazari Lal and Ram Babu v. Shri Gian Ram and others, 1972 RCR (Rent) 74, it was held that even when tenant had vacated the premises allowing others to use the same, but was retaining the legal possession with him, there was no parting of possession. It was thus held that mere user by other person is not parting with possession, as was required for subletting. 16. In Yashvantray Shamjibhai v. Damtirbhai Herajbhai Shingala, 1999(1) RCR (Rent) 290 (Guj), where tenant was visiting the shop while third person was doing business in the shop, it was held that there was no legal transfer of possession. Ground of subletting was held to be not proved. Reference has also been made to Bal Kishan and others v. Kewal Krishan Dutt (de-cased) through LRs and another, 1984(2) RCR (Rent) 663 where without legal transfer of possession, another firm was found carrying on business in the demised shop for some time. 17. Ground of subletting was held to be not proved. Reference has also been made to Bal Kishan and others v. Kewal Krishan Dutt (de-cased) through LRs and another, 1984(2) RCR (Rent) 663 where without legal transfer of possession, another firm was found carrying on business in the demised shop for some time. 17. In Subhash Chand and others v. Sham Sunder Mehta and another, 2012(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 515 : 2013(5) R.C.R.(Civil) 584 : 2012(2) HLR 477, where it was a case of the landlord that the tenant was doing his business in some other shop after leaving the demised shop in favour of alleged tenant and the tenant had duly explained that he was simply assisting his widowed sister in her business in the shop under the tenancy, it was held that it was not a case of subletting and no adverse presumption could be raised if receipt of salary by employer or income tax papers had not been produced by the tenant in support of his claim. 18. In Victor Kumar v. Shakuntla Devi and others, 1995(1) RCR (Rent) 438 (P&H), death of a tenant had entailed his brother to run the business as son of the deceased-tenant was minor at the time of death of the tenant. There was no evidence that the deceased had put his brother in exclusive possession. It was held that even when accounts books had not been produced by the tenant, no adverse inference could be drawn against him and no case of subletting was made out. It is for the landlord to prove that there was subletting. Support in this context has been sought from Kishan Lal Vig v. Sunder and others, 1988(1) R.C.R (Rent) 580 : 1987 HRR 710 (P&H). 19. In Habeli Ram v. Mohinder Singh and another, 1978(2) RLR 376, yet another case of two brothers, who had married two real sisters, when they were carrying on joint business since the inception of tenancy, it was held to be not a case of subletting. 20. Referring to all these authorities, counsel for the tenant has urged that not only delivery of legal possession is sine qua non of sub tenancy but even passing of possession for consideration is necessarily to be proved. Support has been sought from Daudbhai Imranali v. Ajij Yakub Tamboli,1990(2) R.C.R (Rent) 277 : 1991(1) RLR 394 (Bom). 21. 20. Referring to all these authorities, counsel for the tenant has urged that not only delivery of legal possession is sine qua non of sub tenancy but even passing of possession for consideration is necessarily to be proved. Support has been sought from Daudbhai Imranali v. Ajij Yakub Tamboli,1990(2) R.C.R (Rent) 277 : 1991(1) RLR 394 (Bom). 21. Counsel for the revisionist, citing Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amur Kaur, 2004(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 493 : (2005)1 SCC 31, has urged that there is neither any document nor evidence of exclusive possession nor there is proof of passing of consideration. 22. In the present case, both the courts below have heavily relied upon circumstances of electric connection of the premises being in the name of alleged sub-tenant. It was also noticed that the tenant was also having bank account showing himself as owner of M/s. Rajoria Dry Cleaners being run in the tenanted premises. 23. Citing Janab M.P. Azad v. Fathima Sarohini Suresh and others 1983(1) R.C.R (Rent) 83 : 1983(1) RLR 418 (Ker), it is urged that even when licence for running a restaurant in the premises was in the name of son of the tenant, mere licence in the name of his son was not taken to be sufficient to prove that the tenant had parted with the possession in favour of his son. 24. It is then claimed that not only parting with legal possession is to be proved as a fact but even such delivery of possession must be backed by some consideration. Support has been sought from Shama Prashant Raje v. Ganpatrao and others, 2000(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 431 : AIR 2000 SC 3094 . Similar view was taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kewal Chand Jain and another v. Jiwan Kumar Kaushal, 1999(2) RCR (Rent) 215, wherein, holding that tenancy or sub-tenancy may be created by monetary quantification of rent, it was further observed that rendering of services in lieu of occupation, cannot be quantified in terms of money and thus occupation simpliciter cannot be raised to the status of a vested right or for creating of any interest in the premises. Counsel for the petitioner thus has urged that no case of subletting has been proved against the petitioner-tenant. 25. Counsel for the petitioner thus has urged that no case of subletting has been proved against the petitioner-tenant. 25. Refuting the contentions of Counsel for the revisionist-petitioner tenant, it has been contended by the landlord that when parting of legal possession has been established as a fact, its backing with monetary consideration is not sine qua non to establish subletting. Citing Joginder Singh Sodhi v. Amur Kaur, 2004(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 493 : 2005(1) SCC 31 an Apex Court judgment, it has been urged that though burden of proof of subletting is on the landlord but once he establishes parting of possession to a third person, onus would shift on the tenant. In the said case, the landlord had established parting of possession, shifting onus on the tenant to explain as to how the appellant who was son of the tenant and was not staying with his father and further was also doing his independent business, came to occupy the shop rented to the tenant, i.e., his father. On tenant's explanation having been found not plausible, it was held by the authorities concerned that the tenant had sublet the shop to the appellant. This adjudication made by the authorities was upheld. 26. In yet another case reported as Vaishakhi Ram and others v. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani, 2008(1) R.C.R. (Rent) 311 : 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 202 : 2008(2) CCC 245 (SC), it was held as under:-- "11. It is well settled that the burden of proving subletting is on the landlord but if the landlord proves that the sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the suit premises, then the onus is shifted to the tenant to prove that it was not a case of subletting. Reliance can be placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Joginder Singh Sodhiv. Amar Kaur [2004(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 493 : (2005) 1 SCC 31], Therefore, we are in full agreement with the High Court as well as the courts below that since the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 had been in exclusive possession of the suit shop and the appellant No. 1 could not prove that it was not a case of subletting, the suit shop had been sublet by the appellant No. 1 in favour of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4. 2 to 4 had been in exclusive possession of the suit shop and the appellant No. 1 could not prove that it was not a case of subletting, the suit shop had been sublet by the appellant No. 1 in favour of the appellant Nos. 2 to 4. Therefore, no interference can be made with the findings arrived at by the High Court as well as the courts below on the question of subletting." 27. Making observations in the same tone and temper, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that if the landlord proves exclusive possession of the tenant, it was for the tenant to prove that possession of another person was permissive and without consideration. To the same effect is yet another authority of a Coordinate Bench of this Court reported as Om Parkash alias Chitru v. Balwant Rai, 2003(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 346 : 2003 HRR 676, wherein it was held as under:-- "9. There can be no doubt that the onus to establish sub-letting lies on the shoulders of the landlord. There can also be no doubt that while discharging the aforesaid onus, the landlord must establish that exclusive possession of the premises has been vested in the alleged sub-tenant. However, in so far as the second ingredient is concerned, namely, whether the transfer of possession by the tenant to the sub-tenant is for consideration, it has been held that the second ingredient is personal to the tenant and the sub-tenant and it is not possible to be proved by any direct evidence and that it must be presumed from the proof of the first ingredient. In such circumstances, as is evident from the text reproduced above, if exclusive possession of the alleged sub-tenant is established, will be natural to draw an inference that the passing on of possession to the sub-tenant by the tenant is for consideration." 28. In the given facts and circumstances, it is to be seen as to whether the revisionist-tenant has parted with legal possession of the premises as a fact to alleged sub-lessee who is concededly his brother. 29. Conjoint study of the authorities of various High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court cited by both the parties is sufficient to arrive at the legal position with regard to subletting. It may be concluded that onus of proving subletting is on the landlord. 29. Conjoint study of the authorities of various High Courts and Hon'ble Apex Court cited by both the parties is sufficient to arrive at the legal position with regard to subletting. It may be concluded that onus of proving subletting is on the landlord. However, once this onus is discharged by the landlord to the extent that the sub-tenant is in exclusive legal possession of the premises, then onus shifts to the tenant to prove that it was not a case of subletting and further that in which capacity the alleged sub-tenant was in possession of the tenanted premises. If landlord proves exclusive possession of a sub-tenant, the tenant to ward off this conclusion, is required to prove that possession of another person, i.e., the alleged subtenant was permissive and without consideration. 30. After analysis of facts as also law on the point, the Rent Controller as also the Appellate Authority had come to a firm finding against the tenant, clearly holding that the tenant had sublet the premises i.e., the shop to the sub-tenant and that the tenant was left with no control over the premises. Multiple circumstances emerging in evidence of the parties had weighed with both the authorities under the Act. Plea of the tenant that alleged sub-tenant was engaged as a worker on payment of wages to render help in carrying out business of dry cleaning by the tenant in the shop and that he was not a sub-lessee, was not accepted by the authorities under the Act. 31. Finding of fact on this count rendered by the Rent Controller having been affirmed by the Appellate Authority leaves little scope for interference by this Court particularly when the petitioner-tenant has not been able to point out any infirmity in both the impugned orders and no case for mis-appreciation of evidence or wrong application of law is made out. 32. Though, to substantiate his claim that there is mis-appreciation of evidence, Counsel for the petitioner has referred to statements of Ram Parkash P.W. 1 and Sunil Kumar PW2 and Rajesh Kumar PW4 but has not been able to substantiate his claim that the tenant was continuing in possession whereas sub-tenant Narender was only a worker on payment of wages. 32. Though, to substantiate his claim that there is mis-appreciation of evidence, Counsel for the petitioner has referred to statements of Ram Parkash P.W. 1 and Sunil Kumar PW2 and Rajesh Kumar PW4 but has not been able to substantiate his claim that the tenant was continuing in possession whereas sub-tenant Narender was only a worker on payment of wages. Merely because landlord Ram Parksh P.W. 1 has been seeing subtenant Narender working in the shop and had not objected, is no ground to construe as consent to the continuance in possession of the sub-tenant. Rather, part of cross examination which has pointedly been referred to by Counsel for the petitioner, as had been reproduced by him in the grounds of revision, reveals that more the cross examination became close and scrutinizing on these witnesses, more clearly and transparently has emerged the case of subletting against the petitioner-tenant and in favour of the landlord. 33. It has clearly emerged in statement of landlord that tenant Ram Niwas after parting with possession of this shop to his brother Narender a sub-tenant is running his separate dry cleaning shop. It is a different issue that tenant Ram Niwas has unsuccessfully tried to explain that the said other shop was being managed by his wife. Neither wife of the tenant has entered the witness box nor there is any material or attending circumstance to substantiate his claim on this count. 34. Statement of Sunil Kumar PW2, who is son of the landlord, has also categorically shown complete parting of possession of the shop by tenant Ram Niwas to sub-tenant Narender who now runs and controls the shop exclusively. Statement of Rajesh PW4 on this count is un-abatingly supportive and corroborative of statement of Ram Parkash P.W. 1 and Sunil Kumar PW2. 35. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has tried to take help from the testimony of Ram Niwas D.W. 1, Amar Singh D.W. 2 and Ravinder D.W. 3. Event though tenant Ram Niwas has tried to muster support from Amar Singh D.W. 2 and Ravinder D.W. 3 but could not dislodge the proven case of the landlord. 35. Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has tried to take help from the testimony of Ram Niwas D.W. 1, Amar Singh D.W. 2 and Ravinder D.W. 3. Event though tenant Ram Niwas has tried to muster support from Amar Singh D.W. 2 and Ravinder D.W. 3 but could not dislodge the proven case of the landlord. Assertion of the Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that cross examination of Ram Niwas D.W. 1, Amar Singh D.W. 2 and Ravinder D.W. 3 by the landlord was neither effective nor entire case of the landlord was put forth , is an argument of frustration and that too against record. Rather, cross examination of these witnesses of the tenant has been so effective by the landlord that the case of the tenant that he was paying salary to subtenant Narender and that he himself was in control of the shop in question has been totally demolished. Cross examination of Ram Niwas D.W. 1 in particular and of Amar Singh D.W. 2 and of Ravinder D.W. 3 in general, leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner-tenant is on a highly slippery ground. Neither petitioner-tenant Ram Niwas has been able to substantiate his claim that monthly salary of ` 4,000/- was being paid to sub-tenant Narender nor sub-tenant Narender has been able to establish that he has been in possession only as a support to tenant Ram Niwas to run the business. Not even one customer could be brought in the witness box by the petitioner tenant who could state that tenant Ram Niwas was running the shop and was in control of the business. Rather, it transpires that there is clear, legal, and absolute transfer of possession to sub-tenant Narender. 36. There are multiple circumstances which abundantly prove that the original tenant Ram Niwas is no more in physical and legal possession of the shop and has also no control over the business being run there by subtenant respondent No. 2 - Narender. To demonstrate these circumstances may be recapitulated hereunder:-- 37. Concedingly, business in the name of M/s. Rajoria Dry Cleaners is being run in the shop. Physical presence of sub-tenant Narender in the shop is not under question. He is in possession and control of the premises; he is also conducting whole time business in the shop in dispute and is fully in effective possession and all pervasive control of the tenanted premises. 38. Physical presence of sub-tenant Narender in the shop is not under question. He is in possession and control of the premises; he is also conducting whole time business in the shop in dispute and is fully in effective possession and all pervasive control of the tenanted premises. 38. Business of petitioner-tenant in the premises under the name and style of M/s. Rajoria Dry Cleaners has completely been taken over by subtenant respondent No. 2. There is electric connection in the name of respondent No. 2 - Narender. Amar Singh D.W. 4 has proved this fact. Plea of the Counsel for the petitioner-tenant that this finding of both the courts below is not correct has no support to stand. 39. Rather, the documents produced by the landlord got by him through the procedure detailed under the RTI Act, 2005, there does not remain any dispute that initially Rajesh Kumar, brother of Ram Niwas tenant had applied for release of electric connection in the shop in dispute. He was released the connection (Annexure A-12). Even though actually sub-tenant respondent No. 2 -Narender was conducting the business initially, the electric connection was in the name of his brother Rajesh. Later, vide application (Ex. A9) made by sub-tenant respondent No. 2 - Narender to SDO, Haryana State Electricity Board, Me-ham for change of name and address, the electric connection was changed in favour of subtenant respondent No. 2. Right from the time of electric connection being in the name of sub-tenant respondent No. 2 or his brother Rajesh, charges for electricity consumed in the shop were being paid by the sub-tenant. Demand bills right from 6.1.2009 (Ex. A13 to A-20) conclusively go to show that electric connection No. 838 had been installed in the name of sub-tenant respondent No. 2 - Narender. 40. Thus it is clear by now that initially application for electric connection (Ex. A9) was given by Rajesh. Later on by change of name from Rajesh to sub-tenant Narender, electric supply in the shop came to be used from the electric connection got installed exclusively in the name of respondent No. 2 - Narender in the premises in dispute. 41. For running a business, everyone needs money. Even for earnings to be kept safely, one requires services of banking authorities. Bank record is impeccably supportive of the case of landlord. 41. For running a business, everyone needs money. Even for earnings to be kept safely, one requires services of banking authorities. Bank record is impeccably supportive of the case of landlord. Sub-tenant respondent No. 2 -Narender had opened an account with Oriental Bank of Commerce in his own name as proprietor of M/s. Rajoria Dry Clearners. He is the sole authorized signatory for withdrawal of funds from the said account. 42. It is important to notice that when tenant Ram Niwas appeared as his witness, he was questioned on this aspect but he knew nothing, clearly revealing that he was not knowing as to what business was being conducted in the shop in dispute and who was conducting it. There is no assertion ever made by him regarding claim to possession of the shop which is provable by evidence. 43. Even if Narender D.W. 4 has stated that tenant Ram Niwas comes to the shop though very rarely and seldom does not improve the situation. If a tenant having parted possession of the premises to a sub-lessee is not knowing what is happening in his shop and how it is being run, it is a clear case of subletting. If statement of Narender D.W. 4 that the petitioner-tenant Ram Niwas comes, though seldom and very rarely, is taken on face value, there is no advantage to be taken by this statement by tenant Ram Niwas. Ram Niwas is a brother and definitely has no prohibition in going to his brother Narender to meet him or to attend to his familial or social engagements which are clearly other than in the course of running of the business. 44. It is not a disputed fact that Ram Niwas and Narender are brothers. If a brother is coming to his younger brother to ask his well being and for discussion of family affairs even though rarely, he cannot be termed to be a tenant in the shop. 45. Plea of the tenant that sub-tenant Narender -respondent No. 2 had been engaged by him as a worker, has not been supported from any quarters. If a brother is coming to his younger brother to ask his well being and for discussion of family affairs even though rarely, he cannot be termed to be a tenant in the shop. 45. Plea of the tenant that sub-tenant Narender -respondent No. 2 had been engaged by him as a worker, has not been supported from any quarters. Rather, there is clear version emerging in statement of Ram Niwas tenant himself which makes it abundantly clear that economic and financial condition of respondent No. 2 is far better than that of the petitioner-tenant which annihilates the case of tenant Ram Niwas that subtenant Narender is his employee on ` 4,000/- per month salary. 46. It has been proved that respondent No. 2 Narender has also his shop in Shahpur Market. However, that shop is lying closed. Keeping his own shop vacant, he is running the business in shop in dispute whereas original tenant Ram Ni-was is running his yet another shop. No one would close down one's own shop merely for a salary of ` 4,000/- per month. Totality of circumstances unfailingly go to show that there is complete parting of possession and respondent No. 2 Narender is in full control of the business having his own possession, superintendence and strategy to run the same. 47. Merely because in the petition, address of tenant and sub-tenant has been given as the same in title of the petition (Ex. A4), would not bring any benefit to the tenant. Pleadings at the Sub-Divisional Level cannot be expected to be extremely meticulous. In the petition, explaining the case of non-payment of rent, even if there is sweeping mention that the tenant because of nonpayment of rent had rendered his possession to be illegal., it does not help the tenant. Since in para 5 of the petition, name of sub-lessee was not required to be mentioned, this again is an error of drafting in the pleadings and does not affect respective merits of the case of the parties. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, it is clear case of parting of possession. 48. Since in para 5 of the petition, name of sub-lessee was not required to be mentioned, this again is an error of drafting in the pleadings and does not affect respective merits of the case of the parties. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, it is clear case of parting of possession. 48. In view of Joginder Singh Sodhi's case (supra) and Vaishakhi Ram and others case (supra), when onus has sufficiently been discharged by the landlord in establishing that respondent No. 2 is in exclusive possession of the premises, then onus has shifted to the tenant to prove that it was not a case of subletting. 49. As has already been noticed, plea of the petitioner-tenant that respondent No. 2 is merely a helping hand on salary of ` 4,000/- per month, has not been substantiated. Even when the statement of Ram Niwas D.W. 1 and Narender D.W. 4 is read in conjunction with each other, it is not established that Narender D.W. 4 was receiving any payment from Ram Niwas and was working for and on behalf of him. Rather, there is overwhelming evidence available that both the brothers were having their separate independent business, run by them exclusively and differently from each other. They were also having separate residential establishments and were not common either in business or in mess. 50. Test of appreciation of evidence and proof is different in civil cases as compared to criminal cases. In criminal cases when any fact is to be proved beyond doubt, on civil side, only preponderance of evidence or probability as a standard of proof is required. There is cogent and convincing evidence that there is complete transfer of possession from Ram Niwas to Narender, who is now in full control of the shop. It is important to notice that the witnesses of the tenant have not been able to dislodge the case of the landlord of subletting by tenant Ram Niwas to sub-tenant Narender. 51. When entire gamut of facts and attending circumstances are examined, it is clear that taking shelter in relationship of brothers inter-se tenant Ram Niwas and sub-tenant Narender are dodging the law though it is a clear case of subletting. 51. When entire gamut of facts and attending circumstances are examined, it is clear that taking shelter in relationship of brothers inter-se tenant Ram Niwas and sub-tenant Narender are dodging the law though it is a clear case of subletting. Since neither the tenant nor the sub-tenant has been able to prove as to how respondent No. 2 Narender is continuing in the premises unhindered in possession and unfattered in his control of the business being run by him therein, passing of consideration from respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 in the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of authorities Om Parkash alias Chitru's case (supra), Joginder Singh Sodhi's case (supra) and Vaishakhi Ram and others' case (supra), is to be presumed. As a sequel to the above discussion, it is held that the concurrent findings recorded by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority with regard to subletting of the shop, do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and thus affirming the same, this petition, being without any merit, is dismissed.