( 1 ) ROSA 27/2002 is directed against judgment and order dated 2. 8. 2002 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, (for short tribunal,) in RCA No. 980/1996 whereby the learned Tribunal has reversed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller who had dismissed the petition of the petitioner (respondent herein) filed under Section 14 (l) (b), (d), (h) of the delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short act ).

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as have been rioted by the Tribunal, are as follows:

"the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant preferred a petition for eviction impleading Smt. Tara Devi as tenant/respondent and Harbans Lal Mehra (since deceased) as sub/tenant/respondent. It was claimed in the petition that the premises consisting of two rooms, one store inside the room on the ground floor and one room, one tin-shed kitchen on the first floor were let to the husband of Smt. Tara Devi by the predecessor of the appellant. One bathroom was also provided later on. This letting was done on 1. 3. 51 and a Memorandum was executed by the tenant on 11. 3. 51. The husband of respondent No. 1, namely, Kanhaya Lal (since deceased) was, thus, the tenant of the appellant at a monthly rental of Rs. 86. 45 p. m. which rent initially was Rs. 82. 50. The eviction of the respondent was sought on the following grounds as stated in the petition 18 (a) (i) That the respondent No. 1 has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of a part of the tenanted premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the petitioner on or after 9th day of June, 1952. Shri Kanhaya Lal Mehra is the tenant w. e. f. 1. 3. 1951 and he had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of one room and one store inside the room on the ground floor out of the tenanted premises to the respondent No. 2 even without the written consent of the petitioner s father as well as the petitioner at any time on or after 9. 6. 1952. (ii) That the suit premises were let for use as a residence and the respondent No. 1 has not been residing therein for the last more than six months immediately before the date of filing the present petition. There is no other member in the family of the respondent no. 1 as hr husband has also pre-deceased her on 20. 11. 1983. On his death, the respondent No. 1 has also shifted from the tenanted premises and at present she has been residing in H. No. D-254, ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. The aforesaid petition was contested by the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed the written statement in answer to the aforesaid paragraphs as follows: 18 (l) (i) That parano. 18 (l) (i) of the petition is wrong and is denied. It is incorrect to say and allege that respondent No. 1 ever sublet, assigned or parted with possession of the premises to this respondent. As already submitted and clarified this respondent is a tenant in respect of the premises under the petitioner ever since february, 1952. The petitioner has not turned dishonest. He wanted this respondent to increase the rent to Rs. 75/- per month to which this respondent refused point blank and hence this false and frivolous petition against this respondent taking benefit of the non- issue of rent receipts. (ii) Para No. 18 (a) (ii) of the petition is wrong and denied. It is incorrect that the premises were let out for residential purposes alone. As a matter of fact , the premises were let out for residential- cum-commercial purposes and were always used for twin purposes and were always used for twin purposes. Smt. Tara Devi vacated the portion of the premises in her tenancy to the petitioner after accepting a handsome pugree from him. She has colluded with the petitioner to cause harm and loss to this petitioner. Respondent No. 1 never resided in the portion of the property in possession and occupation of this respondent or a tenant of the petitioner which portion has always been in possession and occupation of this respondent e