Exclusive possession may prove subletting when circumstances support an inference of parting with possession.

In eviction proceedings based on subletting, proof of exclusive possession by a third party can justify an inference that the tenant has parted with possession and created a sub-tenancy. Direct evidence of monetary consideration between tenant and alleged sub-tenant is not invariably required, because such arrangements are often clandestine and consideration may be inferred from proved circumstances. Authorities on permissive occupation or family arrangements do not displace this principle when they rest on different facts. On the facts, exclusive possession and surrounding circumstances were sufficient to sustain the finding of subletting under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a proceeding for eviction on the ground of subletting, the landlord must prove direct payment of monetary consideration between the tenant and the alleged sub-tenant, or whether exclusive possession of a third party is sufficient to sustain the finding of subletting.

Analysis: Subletting is established when the tenant parts with possession, wholly or in part, and places another person in exclusive possession. Such arrangements are ordinarily clandestine, making direct proof of an agreement or of actual payment of consideration difficult. The law therefore permits the Court to draw an inference of subletting from the proved facts, especially where exclusive possession by a stranger is shown. Monetary consideration is an essential element of a lease or sub-lease, but it need not always be proved by affirmative evidence if the circumstances justify the inference. Authorities dealing with permissive occupation, family arrangements, or constructive possession on their own facts do not displace this principle.

Conclusion: Proof of exclusive possession coupled with the surrounding circumstances can justify an inference of subletting under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and direct evidence of monetary consideration is not invariably required. The finding of subletting was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for eviction on the ground of subletting, once exclusive possession of a third party is proved, the Court may infer subletting and the existence of consideration from the circumstances; direct proof of monetary consideration is not indispensable in every case.

---