Sub-letting in second appeal: concurrent factual findings could not be disturbed absent a substantial question of law.

Second appeal is confined to a substantial question of law, and the landlord retained the burden of proving sub-letting. On the facts proved, the tenant and another person merely lived together as husband and wife, and the other person conducted business in the shop; that circumstance did not by itself justify a presumption of sub-letting. The deeming provision relating to ostensible partnership was inapplicable because the case was not one of the tenant inducting a partner for sub-letting. The inference on sub-letting was a factual matter, and the concurrent findings rejecting the landlord's case did not warrant interference. The High Court's eviction order was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in second appeal with concurrent findings that the tenant had not sub-let the premises and in treating the matter as involving a substantial question of law.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confined second appeal to cases involving a substantial question of law. The landlord bore the burden of proving sub-letting, and the evidence showed only that the tenant and another person were living together as husband and wife and that the latter carried on business in the shop. That factual situation did not, by itself, justify a legal presumption of sub-letting. The deeming provision regarding ostensible partnership had no application because the case was not one of the tenant letting in a person as a partner for the purpose of sub-letting. The issue whether the proved facts warranted an inference of sub-letting was a matter of fact, and the concurrent rejection of the landlord's case by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal did not raise a mixed question of law and fact requiring interference.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in upsetting the concurrent findings, and its order directing eviction could not stand.

---