Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated 29th August 1984. One Jagan Nath, since deceased, was the original tenant of the premises in question. He died during the pendency of this appeal here. His sons have been substituted. The tenancy in question started on 1st January, 1962. It appears that on 7th November, 1967 notice was addressed to Shri Baldev Raj, describing him as sole proprietor of M/s. Bindra Tent House, New Delhi, for eviction. There was an increase in rent in July, 1970. The respondent herein filed the petition against the appellant herein Jagan Nath under Ss. 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) for eviction of the appellant from the premises consisting of one room forming part of premises No. N-80, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, as the appellant herein had not paid rent with effect from 1st May, 1975 till 30th April, 1977 at the rate of Rs. 75/-per month despite service of the demand notice dated 8th January, 1976. It was the further case of the respondent herein that the appellant had after 9th June, 1962 sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to Shri Baldev Raj Bindra and Sat Pal Bindra without the consent in writing of the respondent-landlord. The suit was filed before the Additional Rent Controller and the same was contested on various grounds. It was contended that the petition was not maintainable because of nonjoinder of Shri Baldev Raj Bindra and Sat Pal Bindra. The premises in question is residential cum-commercial. It was stated that Shri Baldev Raj Bindra and Sat Pal Bindra are the sons of the original appellant, since deceased. The said tenant was inclusive possession of the premises and was carrying on his business therein with which, it was stated, Baldev Raj and Sat Pal had no concern. They are the sons of the tenant, since deceased, and had constituted a Hindu Undivided Family. No demand notice was ever served upon the tenant. The tenant tendered the rent to the landlord by money order for an amount of Rs. 450/- which he refused to accept. The Additional Rent Controller so far as the ground of non-payment of rent was concerned held that there was a compliance with the order passed under S. 15(1) of the Act. The Additional Rent Controller gave the tenant the benefit under S. 14(2) of the Act. The petition of the landlord on the ground of nonpayment of rent was, therefore, dismissed.

2. The other ground was the ground of eviction claimed by the landlord for subletting, assignment or parting with the possession of the premises in question by the tenant in favour of his sons Baldev Raj and Sat Pal Bindra. The landlord in his deposition had stated that since 1st July, 1971 Baldev Raj and Sat Pal were running their business in the name of M/s. Bindra Tent House in partnership and they were in possession of the premises in question. The tenant had no concern with the business carried on in the demised premises and the tenant had retired. The tenant in his cross-examination had stated that he had sent partnership document and form II to the Income-tax Department. The landlord had denied the suggestion that the said Jagan Nath was in possession of the premises and his sons had been helping him from the very beginning. The landlord had produced on the record one statement made by the appellant herein, Jagan Nath before the Income-tax Officer, photostat copy of which is Exhibit A.W. 3/1 on the record which indicated that Jagan Nath who was the proprietor of the Bindra Tent House sold the same for Rs. 18,000/- on 1- 1- 1970 to his sons Baldev Raj and Sat Pal and he got cash of Rs. 8,000/- and he gifted the other amount into two equal sharers to his sons Baldev Raj and Sat Pal. In his statement, Jagan Nath had stated that Sat Pal and Baldev Raj had entered into a partnership in the same name M/s. Bindra Tent House in the same premises.

This