A new tenant who derives his title from a landlord whose own title is defective is liable to be dispossessed.

( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are that an eviction petition was filed by Daijit Singh, respondent herein against the present petitioner under Section 14 (1 ) (d) seeking his eviction from premises No. 5-A, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi. This petition was filed on 11th August, 1986. According to the tenant (petitioner herein), he was in detention since October 1985. The notice of the eviction petition was served through publication in newspaper on 12th November, 1986. The tenant was thereafter proceeded ex-parte and an eviction order passed on 18th February, 1987. In execution of the said eviction order Daijit Singh obtained possession of the tenancy premises on 8th May, 1987. The tenant was released from jail on 9th May, 1987 but was placed under house arrest. On 25th May, 1987, the tenant moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order. On the same date, the Additional Rent Controller passed an interim order in favour of the applicant/ tenant restraining the landlord from creating any fresh tenancy qua the premises in suit. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code was allowed by the Additional Rent Controller on 13th March, 1989. The interim stay order naturally continued to be in operation all along. The appeal filed by the landlord against the order of the Additional Rent Controller allowing the application of the tenant under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 28th September, 1989. Thereafter, the tenant moved an application under Section 144 Civil Procedure Code on 25th October, 1989 for restoration of 785 possession of the tenanted premises. It was in response to this application that the landlord for the first time disclosed that he had let out the premises to M/s. K. C. Vanaspati on 9th May, 1987. The application for restoration was allowed by the learned Additional Rent Controller on 9th January,1991directingdaljitsingh to restore possession of the tenanted premises to petitioner herein. The landlord filed an appeal against the said order which was disposed of by the Rent Control Tribunal on 12th April, 1991 remanding the matter back to the Additional Rent Controller and directing him to dispose of the application of the tenant under Section. 144 Civil Procedure Code after allowing the parties adequate opportunity to lead evidence in proof of their respective versions. The Tribunal felt that the question regarding letting out the premises in the meanwhile to M/s. K. C. Vanaspati as a tenant required to be decided on evidence and, therefore, the case was remanded to the Trial Court. The present petition is directed against the said order of the Rent Control Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has contended before me that the alleged tenancy in favour of M/s. K. C. Vanaspati was totally bogus and sham. Even otherwise the alleged new tenant had no right to the premises under the law. Therefore, no evidence was required to beled. Insupport of this submission, it was submitted that M/s. K. C. Vanaspati never came forward to agitate its right as a lawful tenant in the premises. On the other hand, it was pointed out that on the date of the order of the Rent Control Tribunal even M/s. K. C. Vanaspati was not in the premises as per facts which came to light subsequently. One Nand Kishore claims to have been inducted in the premises as a tenant w. e. f. 1st February, 1988 in place of M/s. K. C. Vanaspati. These facts came to light in view of a suit filed by Nand Kishore in the Trial Court claiming himself to be a lawful tenant in the premises. In the said suit, Daljit Singh is respondent No. I while the present petitioner has been impleaded as respondent No. 2. That is how the present petitioner claims to have got knowledge of these facts. The stand of Daijit Singh in this connection is M/s. K. C. Vanaspati had subletting rights and Nand Kishore was inducted in the premis