SOHAN LAL Vs. PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts giving rise to this second appeal are that an eviction petition was filed with respect to the premises comprising the entire the first floor, second floor along with stairs of premises No. 5730 (old) and 5011 (new) Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi on the ground that the tenant appellant has sub let, assigned or parted with the possession of the demised premises to R.P. Hosiery, T.R. Hosiery and Lovely Hosiery without the written consent of the landlord somewhere in 1966. The grounds of substantial damage and misuse were also pleaded but these grounds were not pressed.

(2.) The eviction petition was contested by the appellant tenant pleading that no valid notice of termination of tenancy has been served and as such the eviction petition was not maintainable. On merits, he pleaded that the premises were not sub let, assigned or parted with possession by him to any one. There are no sub tenants in the premises in question.

(3.) On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the landlord and relying upon the descision of this Court in Abdul Aziz v. Mohd. Yahub, 1971 DLT 192 both the Courts of the Addl. Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal came to a finding that the appellant has sub let the demised premises after 1952 without the consent of the landlord and as such the eviction order under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed.