RAM KARAN Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenants second appeal against the order Rent Control Tribunal directing his eviction under Section 14(l)(b) and 14(l)(k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The finding of the Tribunal is that appellant No. 1, Ram Karan, had sub-let the premises to appellant No. 1, Kanhaiya Lal without the consent in writing from the landlord. The other finding is that contrary to terms of the lease on which the plot under the suit premises has been given to the respondent landlord by the DDA, the appellant No. 2 is using the premises for non-residential purpose.

(2.) The concurrent finding of facts by the Rent Controller and by the Rent Control Tribunal are :

(3.) Counsel for the appellant, however, submits, that after the premises were let out the Ram Karan in 1955, he started the business in the suit premises with Kanhaiya Lal Sometime, thereafter appellant No. 1, Ram Karan left the premises and went to Calcutta. After Ram Karan left for Calcutta the suit premises came under the occupation of appellant No. 2, Kanhaiya Lal and he has been paving the rent of the premises. The contention of the appellant No. 2, Kanhaiya Lal is that he is a tenant in his own right by virtue of his occupation and payment of rent.