ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present revision petition is filed under Section 24 (5) of HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987 against order dated 31.3.2014 passed in rent appeal No. 13 of 2013 whereby learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed order dated 31.7.2012 passed by learned Rent Controller Chamba in rent petition No. 1 of 2010 title Sh. B.R Sammi v. Sh. Narinder Singh and another. BRIEF FACTS OF CASE: 2. Sh. B.R. Sammi landlord filed eviction petition against tenant under section 14 of HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987 pleaded therein that demised premises was rented out at the rate of Rs. 300/- (Three hundred) per month on 1.4.1998. It is further pleaded that demised premises is commercial in nature situated in ward No.8 locality upper Julakari Chamba Town District Chamba H.P. It is further pleaded that non-revisionist No.1 has inducted non-revisionist No.2 as sub tenant and non-revisionist No.2 is in exclusive possession of demised premises. It is further pleaded that tenant is also in arrear of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1999 to the tune of Rs. 39,600/- (Thirty nine thousand six hundred). Prayer for acceptance of eviction petition sought. 3. Per contra response filed on behalf of tenant pleaded therein that landlord has got no cause of action to file eviction petition. It is further pleaded that landlord is estopped by his own act and conduct to file eviction petition. It is further pleaded that eviction petition is barred by time. It is further pleaded that shop is used as workshop for the purpose of manufacturing small steel articles such as trunks and other steel articles. It is further pleaded that demised premises is in exclusive possession of tenant Narinder Singh. It is further pleaded that tenant did not induct any sub tenant in the demised premises. It is further pleaded that father of tenant namely Niranjan Singh was tenant at Dogra market Chamba HP and shop in the possession of father of tenant was destroyed in fire incident in the year 1988 at Dogra market Chamba. It is further pleaded that Government of HP in order to rehabilitate fire victims of Dogra market Chamba provided a stall to the father of tenant at chowgan No.3 Chamba HP. It is further pleaded that Government of HP in order to rehabilitate fire victims of Dogra market Chamba provided a stall to the father of tenant at chowgan No.3 Chamba HP. It is further pleaded that steel products such as almirahs, chairs, tables, trunk used to be manufactured by tenant Narinder Singh and used to be sold by his father Niranjan Singh at chowgan No.3 Chamba. It is further pleaded that after death of the father of tenant non revisionist No.2 Sh Harinder Singh who is real younger brother of Sh Narinder Singh started sale of above mentioned steel articles at chowgan No.3 Chamba HP. It is further pleaded that non-revisionist No.2 namely Sh Harinder Singh has no right, title and interest in demised premises. It is further pleaded that no arrears of rent is due to landlord. Prayer for dismissal of eviction petition sought. Landlord filed rejoinder and reasserted the allegations mentioned in eviction petition. 4. As per pleadings of parties following issues framed by learned Rent Controller. 1. Whether demised premises is in possession of co-respondent No.2 or sublet without permission of landlord as alleged? ...OPP. 2. Whether tenant is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1999 onwards if so its effect? ...OPR. 3. Whether landlord has no cause of action to file present petition? ...OPR. 4. Whether landlord is estopped by his own act and conduct to file present petition? ...OPR. 5. Whether eviction petition is time barred. ...OPR 6. Relief. 5. Learned Rent Controller decided issue Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 in negative and decided issue No.2 in affirmative. Learned Trial Court partly allowed eviction petition and ordered eviction of tenant Narinder Singh on account of arrears of rent w.e.f. 1.3.1999 at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Learned Rent Controller directed tenant to pay Rs. 48370/- (Forty eight thousand three hundred seventy) to landlord with interest @ 9% per annum till date. Learned Rent Controller further directed that tenant would not be evicted if arrears of rent is paid within 30 days from the date of eviction order. Learned Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition on the ground of subletting. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller landlord filed appeal before learned Appellate Authority. Learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.3.2014 dismissed appeal and affirmed order of learned Rent Controller. 7. Learned Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition on the ground of subletting. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Rent Controller landlord filed appeal before learned Appellate Authority. Learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.3.2014 dismissed appeal and affirmed order of learned Rent Controller. 7. Feeling aggrieved against the order of learned Appellate Authority revisionist landlord filed present revision petition. 8. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionists and also perused entire record carefully. 9. Following points arise for determination in present revision petition: 1. Whether revision petition filed under section 24(5) of HP Urban Rent Control Act 1987 is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition?. 2. Relief. 10. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 10.1. PW1 Sh Baldev Raj has tendered in evidence Ext PW1/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that demised premises was given upon rent to Narinder Singh son of Sh. Niranjan Singh in the year 1980 for eleven months. There is recital in affidavit that rent was Rs. 300/- per month. There is recital in affidavit that after 28.2.1999 tenant Narinder singh did not pay rent. There is further recital in affidavit that Narinder Singh has sublet demised premises to his brother Harinder Singh. There is further recital in affidavit that demised premises is in possession of Harinder Singh as of today. There is further recital in affidavit that possession of demised premises be handed over to landlord. Landlord has tendered into evidence documents Ext P1 to Ext P15. In cross-examination PW1 has admitted that rent receipts Ext R1 to Ext R83 have been issued by him. PW1 has stated that he does not know that fire incident took place at Dogra market Chamba HP. PW1 has admitted that Niranjan Singh father of tenant used to work in stall No.3 at chowgan Chamba HP. PW1 has admitted that trunks and almirahs are manufactured in demised premises and sold in stall No.3 at Chowgan Chamba HP. PW1 has admitted that Niranjan Singh father of tenant has died. PW1 has admitted that after death of Niranjan Singh his son non-revisionist Harinder Singh started working in stall No.3 at Chowgan Chamba HP. He has denied suggestion that demised premises is in exclusive possession of Narinder Singh. He has denied suggestion that Narinder Singh is manufacturing steel articles in demised premises. PW1 has admitted that after death of Niranjan Singh his son non-revisionist Harinder Singh started working in stall No.3 at Chowgan Chamba HP. He has denied suggestion that demised premises is in exclusive possession of Narinder Singh. He has denied suggestion that Narinder Singh is manufacturing steel articles in demised premises. He has denied suggestion that there is no subletting in demised premises. 10.2 PW2 Om Parkash Patwari has tendered in evidence field map Ext PW2/A. He has stated that field map is correct as per factual position and the same was prepared by him. 10.3 PW3 Umesh Kumar has stated that he is working in Trackon courier. He has stated that he went to deliver courier Ext P1 to Ext P4 but same could not be delivered and he submitted his report. In examination-in-chief PW3 has stated that he did not go to serve courier personally but his son Balbir Singh went to deliver courier. PW3 has stated that his son Balbir Singh is alive and working along with him. PW3 has stated that report is in his handwriting and further stated that report is not in the handwriting of his son. 10.4 RW1 Ram Kumar has tendered in evidence affidavit Ext RW1/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that RW1 is working in bank as dealing clerk since four years. RW1 has stated in cross examination that record relating to Niranjan Singh has been destroyed in accordance with rules. RW1 has admitted that cheque book and pass book issued by bank in favour of Niranjan Singh are correct. 10.5 RW2 Ramesh Chand has tendered in evidence affidavit Ext RW2/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that RW2 is posted in fire department since fourteen years. There is recital in affidavit that in the year 1988 fire took place at Dogra market Chamba HP and many shops and articles kept in shop were destroyed in fire at Dogra market Chamba. 10.6 RW3 Narinder Singh has tendered in evidence affidavit Ext RW3/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that father of Narinder Singh used to work at Dogra market Chamba HP. There is further recital in affidavit that in the year 1988 fire incident took place in Dogra market Chamba and many shops destroyed in fire. 10.6 RW3 Narinder Singh has tendered in evidence affidavit Ext RW3/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that father of Narinder Singh used to work at Dogra market Chamba HP. There is further recital in affidavit that in the year 1988 fire incident took place in Dogra market Chamba and many shops destroyed in fire. There is further recital in affidavit that thereafter Himachal Government allotted a stall at Chowgan No.3 Chamba HP to the father of Narinder Singh. There is further recital in affidavit that steel furniture was manufactured in demised premises and same was sold in the stall. There is further recital in affidavit that after death of father of tenant younger brother of tenant namely Harinder Singh started selling manufactured articles from stall No.3 Chowgan Chamba. There is further recital in affidavit that demised premises is in exclusive possession of Narinder Singh tenant. There is further recital in affidavit that manufactured articles are sold at Chowgan No.3 by Harinder Singh. In cross examination RW3 has denied suggestion that when he shifted to Sultanpur then demised premises came in exclusive possession of his brother Harinder Singh. RW3 has denied suggestion that he has sublet demised premises to his brother Harinder Singh. RW3 has denied suggestion that he did not pay rent w.e.f. 1.3.1999 to 31.3.2010. 10.7 RW4 Harinder Singh has filed affidavit Ext RW4/A in examination-in-chief. There is recital in affidavit that demised premises is situated in upper Julakhari. There is further recital in affidavit that Narinder Singh is tenant of demised premises since 1980. There is further recital in affidavit that tenant Narinder Singh is manufacturing steel furniture in demised premises. There is further recital in affidavit that father of RW4 used to work at Dogra market Chamba. There is further recital in affidavit that in the year 1988 due to fire Dogra market was destroyed and thereafter Himachal Government allotted stall at Chowgan Chamba. There is further recital in affidavit that father of tenant used to sale steel furniture in the stall. There is further recital in affidavit that after the death of father of tenant Sh Harinder Singh is selling manufactured steel furniture’s in stall No.3. There is further recital in affidavit that Harinder Singh has no interest in demised premises. There is further recital in affidavit that demised premises is in the possession of tenant Narinder Singh. There is further recital in affidavit that after the death of father of tenant Sh Harinder Singh is selling manufactured steel furniture’s in stall No.3. There is further recital in affidavit that Harinder Singh has no interest in demised premises. There is further recital in affidavit that demised premises is in the possession of tenant Narinder Singh. RW4 has denied suggestion that Narinder Singh has shifted to Sultanpur. RW4 has denied suggestion that he is running demised premises. RW4 has denied suggestion that he is in exclusive possession of demised premises. RW4 has denied suggestion that Narinder Singh has sublet demised premises to him. 11. Following documentaries evidence adduced by parties.(1) Ext. P1 is the notice. (2) Ext P2 to Ext P4 are envelopes. (3) Ext. PW2/A is field book. (4) Ext.P5 is jamabandi pertaining to the year 2005-06. (5) Ext P6 is the letter issued to General Manager by landlord. (6) Ext.P7 & P8 are reply of the letter to landlord by General Manager. (7) Ext.P9 & Ext P10 are letter issued to Labour Inspector by landlord. (8) Ext P11 is reply of letter to landlord by Labour Inspector. (9) Ext.P16 is rent deed. (10) Ext.R1 to Ext R83 are receipts of rent. (11) Ext.R84 to Ext R86 are copies of passbooks. (12) Ext.R87 to Ext.R91 are copies of cheque books. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that it is proved on record as per testimony of RW3 Narinder Singh that demised premises was subletted to Harinder Singh and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that Sh Narinder Singh and Harinder Singh are real brothers. Court has carefully perused testimony of RW3 Narinder Singh recorded by learned Rent Controller. It is well settled law that testimony of witnesses recorded in judicial proceedings should be read as a whole and should not be read in isolation in order to determine the disputed facts. RW3 Narinder Singh has specifically stated in positive manner when he appeared in witness box that demised premises is in his possession and he is running demised premises. RW3 Narinder Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that he is proprietor of business running in demised premises. RW3 Narinder Singh has denied suggestion that he has sublet demised premises to his brother Sh Harinder Singh. RW3 Narinder Singh has specifically stated in positive manner that he is proprietor of business running in demised premises. RW3 Narinder Singh has denied suggestion that he has sublet demised premises to his brother Sh Harinder Singh. It is well settled law that in order to prove subletting initial onus is upon landlord to prove subletting. It is well settled law that in order to prove subletting the relationship of lessor and lessee between tenant and sub tenant should be proved in accordance with law. It is well settled law that under section 105 of Transfer of Property Act 1882 the transferor is called the lessor, transferee is called lessee, price is called the premium and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent. In the present case landlord did not prove relation of lessor and lessee between Narinder Singh and Harinder Singh. There is no evidence of payment of premium between Narinder Singh and Harinder Singh. In the present case there is no evidence of payment of any rent by Harinder Singh to Narinder Singh. Landlord did not adduce any eye witness of subletting from locality in present case. There is no document of subletting placed on record on behalf of landlord in the present case executed by Narinder Singh and Harinder Singh. Hence it is held that ingredients of subletting of demised premises are not proved on record in present case between Narinder Singh and Harinder Singh. It is proved on record that Harinder Singh is real brother of tenant Narinder Singh. It is well settled law that assisting brother in business did not fall within definition of subletting. See AIR 1998 SC 2773 title Kala and another v. Madho Parshad Vaidya. See AIR 1999 SC 3087 title Resham Singh v. Raghbir Singh and another. See 1998 (9) SCC 688 title Benjamin Premanand Rawade v. Anil Joseph Rawade. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that revisionist filed application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC for placing on record additional evidence and learned Appellate Authority did not allow application for additional evidence which cause miscarriage of justice to revisionist and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has perused record of learned Appellate Authority carefully. Court has perused record of learned Appellate Authority carefully. Learned Appellate Authority has allowed application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC by landlord vide order dated 21.3.2014 and letter No. 1070 and 1071 have been allowed to be exhibited and have been exhibited as Ext PX and PY subject to cost of Rs. 200/-. Hence plea of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned Appellate Authority did not allow application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC is devoid of any force. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned Rent Controller did not frame proper issues as per pleadings of parties and on this ground revision petition be allowed is also rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Learned Rent Controller framed issues on 1.12.2010 in the presence of learned Advocates and there is recital in order sheet that issues were read over and explained to the parties. Landlord did not claim additional issue before learned Rent Controller. Even landlord did not file any application before learned Rent Controller for framing additional issues. In the present case parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all evidence not only in support of their contentions but also in refutation of other parties. It is held that non framing of issue is not fatal to landlord in the present case. See AIR 1963 SC 884 (Full bench) title Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that it is proved on record that Sh Narinder Singh is exclusive proprietor of M/s Madhur Steel Furniture Udyog in Sultanpur locality and Sh Harinder Singh is exclusive proprietor of M/s Niranjan Singh and Sons in demised premises as per documents furnished before Sale Tax office and Labour department and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Landlord did not examine any official from Sale Tax office and Labour department. In the present case landlord himself appeared as PW1 in witness box and examined PW2 Om Parkash patwari who proved only tatima (Field map) Ext PW2/A placed on record and examined PW3 Umesh who is posted in courier service. Landlord did not examine any official from Sale Tax office and Labour department in order to prove subletting of demised premises. In the present case landlord himself appeared as PW1 in witness box and examined PW2 Om Parkash patwari who proved only tatima (Field map) Ext PW2/A placed on record and examined PW3 Umesh who is posted in courier service. Landlord did not examine any official from Sale Tax office and Labour department in order to prove subletting of demised premises. Hence adverse inference under section 114(G) of Indian Evidence Act 1872 is drawn against landlord in present case. 16. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned Rent Controller has ignored documents Ext P7 and Ext P8 placed on record and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has perused document Ext P7 carefully. Document Ext P7 has signed by General Manager District Industries Centre Chamba HP. Landlord did not examine General Manager District Industries Centre Chamba in Court who has signed document Ext P7 placed on record. It is well settled law that contents of document can be proved by way of witness who is signatory to the document as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. It is held that document Ext P7 did not prove subletting of demised premises between Narinder Singh and Harinder Singh. Court has also perused document Ext P8 placed on record. Document Ext P8 is certificate issued by General Manager District Industries Centre relating to registration of M/s Madhur Steel Furniture Udyog Julakhari Chamba HP. Document Ext P8 did not prove subletting of demised premises in favour of Harinder Singh by Narinder Singh. 17. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority has committed grave error by ignoring the fact that landlord had served number of notice upon tenant regarding subletting and tenant did not rebut the allegation of subletting and on this ground revision petition be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court is of the opinion that non-filing of reply to notice issued by landlord prior to litigation in court did not mean that subletting of demised premises is admitted by tenant in judicial proceedings. There is no document on record in order to prove that tenant has admitted subletting in favour of Harinder Singh qua demised premises in judicial proceedings. Court is of the opinion that non-filing of reply to notice issued by landlord prior to litigation in court did not mean that subletting of demised premises is admitted by tenant in judicial proceedings. There is no document on record in order to prove that tenant has admitted subletting in favour of Harinder Singh qua demised premises in judicial proceedings. It is well settled law that when response is not filed by adverse party to notice issued prior to litigation then aggrieved party can claim costs of entire litigations from adverse party. 18. It is well settled law that concurrent findings of fact of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority should not be disturbed by High Court unless findings of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority are perverse. In the present case it is held that findings of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority are not perverse but are based upon oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record. See AIR 1991 SC 455 title Masjid Kacha Tank Nahan v. Tuffail Mohammed. See AIR 1969 SC 579 title Indore Municipality v. K.N. Palsikar. See AIR 1995 SC 1357 title P. Udayani Devi v. V.V. Rajeshwara Prasad Rao. See AIR 2002 SC 1003 title Gurdial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja. In view above stated facts and case law supra point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Relief). 19. In view of findings on point No.1 revision petition is dismissed. Orders of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned Rent Controller and learned Appellate Authority along with certify copy of order be sent back forthwith. Revision petition is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.