( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 15. 2. 2005 passed by Shri S. M. Chopra, Additional Rent Control tribunal whereby tenant s appeal was allowed and the eviction order under section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the Act ) passed by learned ARC vide order dated 24. 11. 2004 in eviction petition No. E-288/2004 was set aside.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY narrated, facts leading to this petition are that on 3. 10. 96 the petitioner herein filed an eviction petition under section 14 (1) (a) (b) of the Act against New Bank of India through General Manager and Punjab National Bank seeking their eviction from premises K-16, Chaudhary Building, Connaught Circus, new Delhi on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting contemplated under clause (a) and (b) of proviso to sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the demised premises were let out to New Bank of India for commercial purposes and the respondent has failed to pay arrears of rent from october 1993 till date despite service of demand notice dated 10. 10. 94. It was further stated that respondent No. 1 has sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3 without obtaining the written consent of the petitioner. The eviction petition was contested by respondent No. 2 and 3 who are Branch Manager and General Manager of the PNB. There was no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 and 3 in their written statement took the stand that respondent No. 1 is no more a legal entity, the same having been amalgamated in Punjab National Bank under the Govt. of India notification dated 4. 9. 93 issued by Government of India under section 9 of the banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 under clause 4 (2) whereof tenancy rights have been conferred on the Punjab National Bank. It was thus alleged that there has been no subletting, assignment or parting with the possession. Rather Punjab National Bank is a statutory successor of New Bank of india. The allegation regarding arrears of rent and service of demand notice was also denied. After considering the evidence led by the parties and the case laws cited at the Bar, learned ARC vide order dated 24. 11. 2004 held that the demand notice dated 10. 10. 94 was duly served and the respondents failed to clear the arrear of rent within two months from the service of notice and as such there was default in payment of rent. Learned ARC further came to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent/ PNB who are sub leasees or assignee and the original tenant NBI ceased to exist. Therefore, petition under section 14 (1) (a) of the Act was dismissed. As regards grounds contemplated under section 14 (1) (b) of the Act, learned ARC came to the conclusion that the merger/ amalgamation of NBI with PNB vide notification dated 4. 9. 93 issued under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1980 amounts to subletting, assignment or parting with possession of the demised premises. In coming to this conclusion, learned ARC relied upon various authorities namely 113 (2004) DLT 80 (SC) titled as Singer India Ltd. Vs. Chander Mohan chadha and others and another; AIR 1980 SC 1655 titled as M/s Paras Ram harnand Rao Vs. M/s Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain; 1988 (2) RLR page 449 titled as M/s Cox and Kings Agencies Ltd and another Vs. Smt. Chander Malhotra; vo; X 1986 (2) All India Rent Control Journal page 413 titled as M/s General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. And other s Vs. M. A. Khader by LR s.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved by the eviction order, the respondent preferred appeal before learned Tribunal being RCA No. 609/2004. Learned Tribunal set aside the order being of the view that in this case tenancy rights have been