( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 16. 7. 1979 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dismissing the appeal of the appellant and affirming the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, inter-alia, under clause (b) of the Proviso to Section 14 (1) of Delhi Rent Control Act and under clause (j) of Proviso to Section 14 (1) further granting one month s time to the appellant to restore the premises to its original condition and repair the damage caused to the premises and further directing that if the damage is not repaired and the premises are not restored to its original condition within the time granted, the eviction order would be deemed to have been passed on the ground covered by clause (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act as well. As regards ground under clause (a) of the said proviso, the Trial Court had passed the requisition order for the deposit of arrears of rent from 6. 3. 1973 to 5. 7. 1973 and had granted benefit of Section 14 (2) subject to the tenant depositing the arrears of rent within time allowed by the Additional Rent Controller.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the present second appeal, in brief, are that the respondent/landlady filed an eviction petition against the appellant on the grounds of eviction covered by clauses (a), (b) and (j) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The present appeal has been admitted only on the ground of eviction covered by clause (b), i. e. , assigning, subletting or parting with possession of the premises in dispute to Balbir and Jagmal Singh without written permission of the respondent/landlady.

( 3 ) WITH regard to the ground of subletting or parting with possession of the premises in dispute, the case of the respondent/landlady is that a shop, a verandah located in property No. 2031, Tri Nagar, Delhi had been let out to the appellant since 1967 and he has sublet, assigned, or otherwise parted with possession of the whole shop in favour of Balbir and Jagmal, who were joined as respondents in the eviction petition. The landlady has further alleged that they have been inducted in the premises since 1970 without the written consent of the landlady. The appellant denied and disputed the contentions and allegations of the respondent/landlady on this point and has contended that the premises are with him and Balbir is working with Mool Chand, who appeared as RW1. He has further contended that Balbir is his nephew and Jagmal is his brother. He has further stated that he sometimes remains in the village and sometimes in Delhi and in his absence, Balbir looks after his business. The respondent/appellant had examined a number of witnesses apart from RW1. RW1 had stated that he had never seen any business board displayed on the premises in dispute. RW1, apart from bold statement to the effect that Balbir is working with him, has failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate this oral statement and no relationship of employer - employee could be established on record. This witness, RW1 comes from the same village as the appellant. RW2 has stated having seen the appellant always in the shop. According to him also, there was never any business board displayed outside the shop in question. He also comes from the same village as the appellant. Jagmal, who claims to be the brother of appellant, had also tried to support the appellant, but a look at their parentage will show that they are not brothers. While Jagmal has recorded his father s name as Uma Ram, the appellant gave his father s name as Handu Ram. Balbir has also not given any detail of the relationship with the appellant. On the other hand, the respondent/landlady got a Local Commissioner appointed immediately after institution of the petition for eviction and the said Local Commissioner had given his report, which is Exhibit AW1/2 in which he has mentioned having found Balb