[12] In view of aforesaid situation, which is prevailing on record and in the context of aforesaid proposition of law, the decisions which have been cited by learned advocates to convince the Court are not possible to be applied as a straitjacket formula. What has been laid by the Courts in the said decisions is that there must be a fact reflecting that the tenant has transferred his legal possession. Now here, in an attempt for securing continuance of possession, the Courts below have found that the creation of partnership is illusory, and rightly appears to have not been accepted, and as such, this Court is of the view that the said decisions which have been cited by petitioner are of no avail. Furthermore, keeping in view yet another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Murti Devi (supra) what has been laid down by the Apex Court in paragraph No.23 is that the landlord has to prove by leading evidence, a ground of subletting, and further, parting of possession thereof was for monetary consideration. Essentially, the Apex Court has emphasized that to prove this, the onus is on the landlord, and hence, the said judgment, if is to be looked into in the background of the present facts and circumstances, the conclusions, which have been arrived at by both the courts below are not possible to be disturbed, particularly when Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act indicates an absolute prohibition on the tenant from subletting, assigning or transferring in any manner, his interest in the tenanted premises. If the tenant parts with possession, he would forthwith loose the protection under the provisions of the Rent Act. Keeping in view the object underlined under Section 13(1) (e) of the Act, when the circumstances and the ingredience are sufficient enough to indicate unauthorized transfer or
