JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - Smt. Beant Kaur, respondent No.1 herein, landlady and owner of the premises in dispute, had rented out the same to Pawan Kumar, petitioner herein (since deceased and now represented through his LRs) for running a general merchandise (Maniyari) shop w.e.f. 3.6.1987 @ Rs.500/- per month. Pawan Kumar continued paying rent upto May, 1992. Thereafter, Shiv Kumar, respondent No.2 herein, allegedly entered into possession of the shop without consent of the landlady and started running a tent-house as a sub-tenant of tenant Pawan Kumar. 2. Eviction of tenant Pawan Kumar and sub-tenant Shiv Kumar under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was sought by the landlady on the grounds of personal bonafide necessity, material impairment in value and utility of the premises by illegal acts of the respondents, non-payment of rent w.e.f. 1.6.1992 to 31.1.1996, change in user of the shop from Maniyari to a tent-house and of subletting from tenant Pawan Kumar to sub-tenant Shiv Kumar. 3. Though both the respondents had made appearance before the Rent Controller but during the course of proceedings, respondent No.2 Shiv Kumar i.e. sub-tenant was proceeded against ex-parte and only respondent No.1 Pawan Kumar i.e. the tenant had filed his reply wherein he contested the claim of the landlady tooth and nail making complete denial of the allegations made by the landlady against him. Denying all the allegations, it was claimed that the rent stood paid from 1.6.1992 to 31.1.1996 though no receipt was issued by the landlady. The rent, however, as ordered by the Rent Controller, was tendered upto 30.9.1996 wherein right to recover rent already paid was reserved by the tenant. The allegations of subletting, running of tent business, impairment in value and utility of the premises etc. were denied. 4. Following issues were settled by the Rent Controller for adjudication of the rival claims of the parties: 1. What is the rate of rent? OPA 2. Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the basis of various grounds mentioned in para No.2 of the rent application? OPA 3. Whether application is not maintainable and the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition, by her acts and conduct? OPR 4. What is the rate of rent? OPA 2. Whether respondent is liable to be ejected from the shop in dispute on the basis of various grounds mentioned in para No.2 of the rent application? OPA 3. Whether application is not maintainable and the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition, by her acts and conduct? OPR 4. Whether petitioner has claimed excessive rent in the petition and that the respondent has already tendered the rent from 1.6.1992 to 31.1.1996? OPR 5. Whether petitioner is not entitled to claim any house-tax from the respondent No.1, as no notice regarding imposition of the house-tax was served upon the respondent No.1, as required by law? OPR 6. Relief. 5. Oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by the parties. Rate of rent was determined by the Rent Controller to be Rs.500/- per month. Plea of the tenant that the rent had been paid upto 30.9.1996 though he was liable to pay rent uptil 30.5.1996, was accepted. Maintainability of the petition, however, was adjudicated in favour of the landlady. After discussion of evidence, all the grounds taken for eviction of the tenant were found to be meritless and the petition of the landlady was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 18.3.1998. 6. The Appellate Authority under the Act, Nawanshahr (hereinafter mentioned as the Appellate Authority) though concurred with the Rent Controller on all other points but completely disagreeing on the point of subletting, had held that tenant Pawan Kumar had sublet the premises in dispute to sub-tenant Shiv Kumar without consent of the landlady. Consequently, appeal filed by the landlady was allowed vide judgment dated 18.12.2001 passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. In this civil revision petition, challenging findings of the Appellate Authority, tenant Pawan Kumar had claimed that ground of subletting was not proved and well-reasoned judgment of the Rent Controller was reversed on this score without any foundation, material or evidence. 8. Hearing has been provided. 9. It is claimed that burden of proving subletting was on the landlady and there is no presumption of creation of sub-tenancy. It is averred that revisionist-tenant Pawan Kumar was in full control of the premises in dispute as also of the business run therein and as such, there was no subletting or change of business. Hearing has been provided. 9. It is claimed that burden of proving subletting was on the landlady and there is no presumption of creation of sub-tenancy. It is averred that revisionist-tenant Pawan Kumar was in full control of the premises in dispute as also of the business run therein and as such, there was no subletting or change of business. Referring to the report of Local Commissioner appointed by the Rent Controller on 25.10.1996, it was claimed that there was no change in the business and Maniyari shop was being run in the premises. It is claimed that even neighbour Vijay Kumar (RW1) had categorically deposed that tenant Pawan Kumar was running the said shop since long and had never parted with possession of the same. To the same effect is deposition of Madan Lal (RW2). In fact, stand of tenant Pawan Kumar right from the very beginning is that he had never parted with possession of the premises as he had never sublet the shop in dispute to Shiv Kumar. It is claimed that verdict of the Appellate Authority dated 18.12.2001 has no evidence or material to reverse the judgment of the Rent Controller dated 18.3.21998. Prayer for acceptance of the revision petition and reversal of the judgment of the Appellate Authority has been made. 10. During pendency of this petition, tenant Pawan Kumar had died and is now being represented by his widow and two wards as his LRs. 11. At the outset, it may be mentioned that as only ground of subletting has been proved in favour of the landlady, thus, discussion in this petition would be concentrated only on this aspect. Subletting is never truthfully projected either by the tenant or by the sub-tenant. It is always a clandestine deal. To collect primary evidence to support subletting is a difficult task. 12. It is a common adage that men may lie but circumstances do not. Sequelly, circumstances emerging with passage of time do not lose their existence. 13. There is merit in contention of counsel for the respondent that sub-tenancy as a ground of eviction is to be proved by the landlord. Nasib Chand is husband of the landlady. Appearing as AW1, he has deposed in consonance with averments made in the petition and has laid the circumstances constituting subletting threadbare. 13. There is merit in contention of counsel for the respondent that sub-tenancy as a ground of eviction is to be proved by the landlord. Nasib Chand is husband of the landlady. Appearing as AW1, he has deposed in consonance with averments made in the petition and has laid the circumstances constituting subletting threadbare. He was subjected to a very lengthy and scrutinizing cross-examination but nothing dislodging his creditworthiness has come on record. Rather, more the cross-examination became grilling and close on this witness, more clearly and transparently has emerged the case of the landlady regarding subletting of the premises by Pawan Kumar to Shiv Kumar w.e.f. June, 1992. 14. Nasib Chand (AW1) is fully supported and corroborated in all material details by the deposition of Chaman Lal (AW2) and Hari Dev (AW3), who have personal knowledge of the entire matter. When specific allegations of having parted with possession of the premises to respondent No.2 Shiv Kumar have been made in the petition, re-asserted in the evidence and have been elaborately explained on oath by Nasib Chand (AW1), it was necessary for respondent No.1 Pawan Kumar to enter the witness box to counter the version of the landlord while supporting his own case that he continued to be in possession of the premises doing the same business of Maniyari shop without any change of business or of introduction of any other person as a sub-tenant. 15. It is important to notice that though respondent Shiv Kumar was duly served and represented by his counsel, but had preferred not to enter the witness box. Clearly, respondent No.2 Shiv Kumar sub-tenant had played truant with the proceedings before the Rent Controller and had not made appearance at all and thus, was proceeded against ex-parte. It was on 7.10.1996 that Hari Dev (AW3) had caged the premises in dispute in the camera and photograph Ex.A5, negative whereof is Ex.A4, representing the position then prevailing at the spot. It is abundantly clear from photograph Ex.A5 that sign-board of Nand Tent House is affixed at the premises. It is to be noticed that the respondents had nowhere denied either the location or relationship of photograph Ex.A5 and negative Ex.A4 relating to the shop in dispute. Hari Dev (AW3) has not shied away from the witness box as has been done by tenant Pawan Kumar and has rather braved the crossexamination. It is to be noticed that the respondents had nowhere denied either the location or relationship of photograph Ex.A5 and negative Ex.A4 relating to the shop in dispute. Hari Dev (AW3) has not shied away from the witness box as has been done by tenant Pawan Kumar and has rather braved the crossexamination. He is categorical that he had taken the photograph of the shop in dispute where sign-board with title Nand Tent House was affixed. There is no reason for respondent Pawan Kumar for having not entered the witness box and having sent his attorney Madan Lal (RW2) whereas he could have entered himself in the witness box as he had neither any disability nor any explainable reason to play truant with the witness box. 16. It is worth notice that statement of Madan Lal (RW2) has clinched the issue. He has specifically stated that Shiv Kumar respondent No.2 is Nand by sub-caste and the shop is run by him in the premises in dispute as Nand Tent House. Leaving no chance, he further clarified that the shop in dispute relatable to Shiv Kumar respondent No.2 is the same which he identified as Ex.A5. It is worth notice that when neighbour Vijay Kumar was examined as RW1, the sign-board was not there. It is, thus, clear that after 7.10.1996 when the photograph of the shop with sign-board thereon was clicked, it was very deftly removed by respondent Shiv Kumar as he was the only beneficiary of the same. 17. Deposition of Madan Lal (RW2) has made everything clear. Reading of statement of Madan Lal (RW2) attorney of respondent No.2 Shiv Kumar in the interface of photograph Ex.A5 of 7.10.1996, is clear that the shop had prominently displayed the sign-board as Nand Tent House, which later on was removed. Merely because it is not known as to who painted the same and who removed such sign-board thereafter, are not circumstances to dilute the case of the landlord because the beneficiary is Shiv Kumar and he alone has done all this. 18. There are other factors which cannot be ignored. Merely because it is not known as to who painted the same and who removed such sign-board thereafter, are not circumstances to dilute the case of the landlord because the beneficiary is Shiv Kumar and he alone has done all this. 18. There are other factors which cannot be ignored. These are as under: (i) Sign-board with title ‘Nand Tent House’ could not have appeared at the face of the shop had Pawan Kumar been running a Maniyari shop therein as he was running till May, 1992; (ii) Pawan Kumar having noticed the sign-board could not have remained ignorant and had he genuinely been in possession of the shop, he even could not have allowed display of the sign-board of a tent house on his shop; and, (iii) When neither any objection has come from Pawan Kumar, earlier tenant, regarding displaying of the sign-board on the shop nor any reprisal action was taken by him qua this development, itself is indicative of the fact that he is no more in possession and is hardly concerned with the developments taking place in the shop. 19. All the circumstances taken together go to establish that tenant Pawan Kumar is no more in possession, whereas sub-tenant Shiv Kumar is in possession and is running the business of tent house since June, 1992. 20. It would be worth notice that the Local Commissioner appointed by the Rent Controller, had visited the spot on 25.10.1996. His report is Ex.A6. Though at the time of his visit, there was no sign-board displaying Nand Tent House and rather some Maniyari articles were lying in the shop but it could not escape notice of the Local Commissioner that face of the shop was fully painted very recently clearly revealing that the signboard of Nand Tent House existing earlier as shown in photograph Ex.A5 was removed to create evidence as visit by the Local Commissioner was to be made. 21. It is also worth notice that respondent No.1 has nowhere claimed that he has been in possession and had been running the tent house in the said shop. There is clear admission of Madan Lal (RW2) that respondent Shiv Kumar is of sub-caste ‘Nand’ and he only had been running the business of tent house in the shop in dispute. It is also worth notice that respondent No.1 has nowhere claimed that he has been in possession and had been running the tent house in the said shop. There is clear admission of Madan Lal (RW2) that respondent Shiv Kumar is of sub-caste ‘Nand’ and he only had been running the business of tent house in the shop in dispute. Neither possession of respondent Pawan Kumar nor carrying on of the Maniyari business is proved, then the only irresistible conclusion is that the shop in possession is of respondent Shiv Kumar who is running the tent house without permission of the landlord and thus, his status is of a sub-tenant as respondent No.1 is no more in control of the shop or of the business conducted therein. 22. When tenant Pawan Kumar is not proved to be in possession of the premises, he should have explained the possession of sub-tenant Shiv Kumar as also the capacity in which he was holding the possession but there is complete lull from tenant Pawan Kumar on this aspect. Rather, instead of entering the witness box and facing the cross-examination, he had sent Madan Lal (RW2) who has spoken truth and clearly stated that sub-tenant Shiv Kumar is running the tent house in the name of ‘Nand Tent House’ and is in possession of the shop and Pawan Kumar is no more in possession of the said shop. 23. From the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed earlier, it is abundantly clear that tenant Pawan Kumar is no more in possession of the premises in dispute since June, 1992 and rather sub-tenant Shiv Kumar is continuing in possession and is running the business of tent house in the name and style of ‘Nand Tent House’. His sub-caste is also ‘Nand’. The detailed discussion made by the Appellate Authority is clear and categoric. 24. In view of Om Parkash alias Chitru Versus Balwant Rai 2003 HRR 676 (P&H); Joginder Singh Sodhi Versus Amar Kaur (2005) 1 SCC 31 and Vaishakhi Ram and others Versus Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani [2008(2) Law Herald (SC) 1113] : 2008 (2) CCC 245 (SC), 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. 25. 25. When entire gamut of attending facts and attending circumstances is examined, it is clear that tenant Pawan Kumar is no more in possession of the premises which is presently occupied by sub-tenant Shiv Kumar who alone is in complete and unfettered control of the business of tent house being run by him therein and is continuing unhindered in possession of the premises from anyone much less by tenant Pawan Kumar. In view of authorities Om Parkash alias Chitru’s case (supra), Joginder Singh Sodhi’s case (supra) and Vaishakhi Ram and others’ case (supra), passing of consideration from sub-tenant Shiv Kumar to tenant Pawan Kumar in the facts and circumstances of the case is to be presumed. 26. As such, eviction order of the Appellate Authority on the ground of subletting has no fault either on facts or in law. 27. Sequelly, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.12.2001 of the Appellate Authority. Consequently, affirming the same, this petition being without any merit, is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------