SUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL Vs. MURLI MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controvetsy in this appeal filed under the provisions of Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is rather restricted.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute and as found by both the Courts below are that Rama Rani and her son had filed an eviction petition against Respondent No. 1. (since deceased) and his sub- tenant L.D. Bhargava (since deceased). Respondents No. l(i) to 1(v) are the legal representatives of Respondent No. 1 and Respondents No. 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of L.D. Bhargava.

(3.) The eviction petition was filed claiming eviction of the Respondents under the provisions of Clauses (b), (d) and (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. The Courts below were of the view that no case of sub-letting under Clause (b) had been made out by the eviction petitioners nor did they make out any ground for eviction under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. Consequently, the only ground of eviction that services for consideration is under Clause (d) of the proviso to section 14(1) of the Act. After the death of Rama Rani, her daughter Usha Mathur was substituted in her place. The eviction petitioners later sold the suit premises to one Subhash Chand Ag- garwal who has beein substituted as the sole Appellant. Clause (d) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act reads as follows:-