KAMAL NAYAN AND ANR. Vs. HEM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants are aggrieved by an order dated 29th March, 1997 whereby their first appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal.

(2.) THE Respondent had filed a petition for eviction of the Appellants on the ground that Appellant No.1 had sub -let the suit premises to Appellant No.2. It was contended that in view of this, the Appellants were liable to be evicted under the provisions of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) THE suit premises were taken on rent by Appellant No.1 (since deceased) sometime in December, 1978. According to the respondent in January 1979 Appellant No.1 informed him that he was the sole proprietor of Sigma Electronics. He requested that the rent receipts be issued in the name of Sigma Electronics.