( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12th September, 1985 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 560 of 1985. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the first appeal of the appellant and ordered his eviction from the suit premises.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are not in serious dispute. According to the appellant, he and the respondent entered into a lease deed dated 1st September, 1978. In terms of Clause 5 of this lease deed, the appellant was entitled to sub-let, assign or otherwise part with the possession of a part or the whole of the demised premises. The admitted position is that the lease deed was not a registered document. It is also admitted that in view of Clause 5 of the lease deed, the appellant had sub-let a part of the suit premises.

( 3 ) THE question that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the subletting of a part of the suit premises was permissible or not. The question raised in this appeal is no longer res integra, the controversy having been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Bihari Lal Kohli, AIR 1989 SC 1806.

( 4 ) IN paragraph 8 of the report, the