SIRI PAL JAIN Vs. BRIJ KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the tenant challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 26-11-1981 holding that the respondents-landlords have filed the eviction application under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that it should be tried under section 25-B of the Act.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that respondents I to 3 filed an application for eviction of the appellent and respondent No 4 under sections 14(l)(e) of the Act. In. the application the landlords also pleaded that respondent No. 4 (in this appeal) was made a party to avoid any objection at a later stage and to get the matter finally decided as she was in occupation of a portion of the suit premises which was lying locked, and that there was parting with possession by that tenant-appellant in her favour. The Controller by order dated 3-10-1981 held that the landlord had taken the ground of sub-letting within the meaning of section It (1) (b) of the Act and so application for eviction was not to be tried under section 25-B of the Act but only as an ordinary eviction application. On appael by the landlords the Tribunal held that the ground of sub-letting was not taken specifically and that it was an application for eviction under section 14(l)(e) of the Act only The Tribuual therefore, directed the application to be tried ' under section 25-B of the Act. The tenant has filed this second appeal. He submits that the eviction application is not under section 14(l)(b) of the Act, but Smt. Kaushal Kumari Jain respondant No. 4 being a party to the application for eviction and she being not a tenant, the application cannot be tried under section 25-B of the Act.

(3.) The admitted facts are that respondents I to 3 are landlords and the appellant is the tenant. Respodent No. 4 Kaushal Kumari Jain is alleged to be a sub-tenant. . The allegations contained in the eviction application do not amount to claiming, and .eviction against the appellant and respondent No. 4 on the ground-of sub-letting but it amounts to the claim for eviction only on the ground mentioned in section 14( I )(e) of the Act. The question however is whether in a proceeding under section 14 (e) of the Act an order of eviction can be passed against a person who is not a tenant .under the landlord. From the pleadings is clear that respondent No. 4 Smt. Kaushal Kumari Jain is not a tenant. Section 25-B(4) of the Act needs as under: