The judgment emphasizes the importance of substantiating payment for lawful tenancy and highlights the limitations on raising new factual claims at later stages of the case.

( 1 ) ADMIT. THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 24/11/1999 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) allowing rca No. 550 of 1993;

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 is the landlord of the suit premises. He filed an eviction petition against his tenant (respondent No. 2) and against the alleged sub-tenant who is the petitioner in this case. The eviction petition was filed on the grounds mentioned in Clauses (a) (b), (d) and (h) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 3 ) THE learned Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 22/09/1993 held that the ground of eviction under Clauses (a), (d) and (h) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act had been made out. In arriving at this conclusion, the learned Additional Rent Controller had necessarily to hold that respondent No. 2 is the tenant of respondent No. 1. This conclusion was not challenged in appeal and is now final.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, when it came to deciding the ground of eviction under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act/ the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 was a tenant in the suit premises up to May, 1984 and thereafter the petitioner was the tenant in the suit premises. Quite clearly, there is an inherent contradiction in the conclusions drawn by the learned additional Rent Controller.

( 5 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 (landlord) filed an appeal against the order of the learned additional Rent Controller with regard to the finding given in respect of the question of sub-letting under Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act. The learned Tribunal allowed this appeal by the impugned order. It was held that respondent No. 2 was the tenant in the suit premises and the petitioner was his sub- tenant.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties made their submissions on 18th and 2 2/09/2000 when judgment was reserved.

( 7 ) IT was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the tenant (Respondent No. 2) who was living in the suit premises which are on the first floor, vacated the same some time in May, 1984. According to him, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 60. 000. 00 to respondent No. 1 and he was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises immediately thereafter. Accordingly, it was contended that ft was not a case of any sub-tenancy being created - the petitioner was a lawful tenant and recognised as such by respondent No. 1 landlord. It was submitted that respondent no. 1 landlord was not issuing any rent receipts and it is only when the petitioner began demanding the receipts that respondent No. 1 decided to file the eviction petition some time in 1990, that is, after a gap of about 5 or 6 years.

( 8 ) BOTH the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not able to substantiate the allegation that he had made a payment of Rs. 60,000. 00 to respondent No. 1. This being a finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, it is not possible for me to disturb it in the absence of any cogent reason. But, the result of this finding of fact is that the whole basis of the case set up by the petitioner falls to the ground and it cannot possibly be held that the petitioner was a lawful tenant in respect of the first floor of the suit property.

( 9 ) IT was contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was rather odd that even though respondent No. 1 knew that the Petitioner was unauthorisedly residing in the suit premises yet he took no action to evict him for several years. According to him, respondent No. 1 should have taken action within three years but since he failed to do so, then under the provisions of the Limitation Act, he could not have instituted the eviction petition.

( 10 ) I am afraid the question of limitation was not raised by the petitioner in his written statement. The question of limitation is essentially a question of fact and I