proved on record. Arun Kumar (RW3) had only identified the signatures of his father Arjan Dass on the said document Ex.RW3/1 dated 14.7.1983 but the said deed has not been firmly proved by examining any of the attesting witness or the scribe of the same. Nevertheless, the partnership deed Ex.RW3/1 reveals that the petitioners were shown as sleeping partners and they would not be responsible for the liabilities of the firm. Admittedly, the petitioners were not relatives of the respondents. Had it been so, then there was no necessity to introduce them as partners and it is also contrary to the factual position as lot of evidence has come on record that these are the petitioners who were running the entire business. Even the real landlords have not filed appeal or the revision petition in the court. The said partnership deed dated 14.7.1983 was never acted upon. It was not registered with the Registrar of Firms, Income Tax or Sales Tax Authorities. The accounts of M/s Kewal & Company and M/s S.P. Oswal and Hosiery have not been proved on record. The sub-tenancy has duly been proved by Baldev Raj Jain- landlord through a categoric statement and he has further proved that the petitioners are paying rent @ Rs.1500/- per month to M/s Kewal & Company. Gurbachan Singh (AW3) has also supported this fact. No rebuttal to the aforesaid evidence has been led by the petitioners or Kewal & Company by producing their account books. No bill books, receipts or purchase vouchers have been brought on record in order to establish that same were being issued by Banarsi Dass etc. the original partners of the firm. Mr. Parveen Talwar, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Rent Controller who inspected the demised premises after visiting the spot on 25.2.1985 and vide his report Ex.A-1 observed that at the time of inspection Siri Pal father of the petitioners was transacting business at the spot. Krishan Lal (AW6) had accompanied the Local Commissioner and he took the photographs Ex.AW6/1 to Ex.AW6/16. He also proved the negatives thereof as Ex.AW6/17 to Ex.AW6/32, which also indicate that Siri Pal was transacting the business at that time. All this goes to show that the disputed premises was not in occupation of the original tenant but the same were in possession of the sublettees. The partnership deed having not been proved according to law is of no consequence and is hardly sufficient to prove the partnership of the petitioners with M/s Kewal
