is having control over the building and no exclusive possession has been given to the second counter petitioner. When he is doing business of his own, an inference can be drawn that for the purpose of business, he must have control over hat area where the business is being conducted. Further, when a telephone is installed, it could be presumed that he has got a permanent address in the schedule building. That means, he has got the right to exclude and include others in the place where he is doing business. Unless he has got control over the premises, the telephone cannot be installed, for, he must have permanent address in that building. A name board is also placed in the name of the second countr petitioner. A mere denial by the petitioner will not be sufficient to come to the conclusion that the second counter-petitioner has no exclusive possession. On the basis of he evidence, adduced, the Authorities below have come to the conclusion that the second counter petitioner must be in possession exclusively with right to exclude and include others. When the landlord has proved that a stranger is in possession and is doing business in the premises, it is for the tenant to substantiate the circumstances under which the stranger came into occupation. Mere denial may not be sufficient. The arrangement between the tenant and the second counter-
