Parting with possession requires exclusive transfer of legal control; tenant's own advertisement use is not sub-letting.

Use of a tenant's shop roof for an advertisement board did not, on the facts noted, amount to assignment, sub-letting, or parting with possession. The tenant himself had installed and maintained the board, carried on the advertising activity, paid the related expenses, and retained control over the premises. Because no exclusive legal possession of the roof or any part of it was transferred to an advertising agency or other third party, mere permission to use the space for hoarding was insufficient. The stated position is that the statutory ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(e) is attracted only when exclusive possession is parted with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant's use of the shop roof for an advertisement board, and receipt of payment for advertisements, amounted to assignment, sub-letting, or otherwise parting with possession so as to attract eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

Analysis: The material on record showed that the tenant himself had put up and maintained the board, carried on advertising activity, bore the expenses of painting and writing, and retained control over the premises. The evidence did not establish that any exclusive legal possession of the roof or any part of it had been transferred to an advertising agency or any third party. Mere permission to use space for an advertisement hoarding, without ouster of the tenant's own legal possession, was insufficient to constitute parting with possession. On the facts found, neither assignment nor sub-letting was proved, and the landlord failed to establish the statutory ground for eviction.

Conclusion: The ground under Section 13(1)(e) was not made out against the tenant, and the eviction order could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Parting with possession requires transfer of exclusive legal possession to a third party; mere commercial use of the tenant's premises by the tenant himself does not amount to sub-letting or otherwise parting with possession.

---