CHAND GUPTA Vs. GULZAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-landlord had filed an application under Section 14(1)(b )of the Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 (for short the 'Act') for ejectment of the respondents. All the three Courts concurrently found that Gulzar Singh was the sole tenant. The Rent Controller and the Tribunal-found that he sublet the, demised premises to Avtar Singh, his brother and therefore ordered ejectment. The High Court found that the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises bearing No. W. Z. 258/4, Subash Bazar, Nangal Kaya, New Jail Road, New Delhi, and that he did not sublet the premises to Avtar Singh. On that premise the petition for ejectment was dismissed. Thus this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

(2.) Shri Nagaraja, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the High Court has committed a gross error in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Addl. Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal that the tenant, Gulzar Singh has sublet the premises in question to his brother, Avtar Singh and that it is not open to the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. He placed reliance on Sec. 18 of the Evidence Act and said that in an affidavit filed by Avtar Singh before Income-tax authorities he claimed exclusive possession as a tenant and that, therefore, the admission made by him would be binding on Gulzar Singh. The Addl. Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal relying upon this admission of Avtar Singh and other oral evidence concluded that Avtar Singh alone was in exclusive possession and that, therefore, subletting was proved as a fact. We find no substance in the contention. Section 18 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

(3.) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.