An eviction petition is not maintainable if the relationship of landlord and tenant has ceased to exist on the date of institution of the eviction petition.

( 1 ) THE appellant filed the present eviction petition in August 1977against two respondents,nainely,sharda Deviand Ms. Ranjita Shalini for their eviction from the suit premises comprising of ground floor of House No. 122, Golf Links, New Delhi on the grounds contained under Clauses (b) and (d) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ). Ground (b) relates to sub-letting while ground (d) relates to residential premises not being occupied by the tenant or any member of his family for a period nf six months immediately before the date of filing of the eviction petition.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the appellants one Mahadevan was the tenant in the premises. His tenancy had been duly terminated through a notice dated 27th February, 1968 served on him on 1st March 1968. After the service of the said notice an eviction petition had been filed by the appellants herein against Mahadevan alleging that he had sub-let the premises to Sharda Devi. During the pendency of the said eviction petition, Mahadevan married Sharda Devi and the said eviction petition failed. The service of notice of termination of tenancy on Mahadevan was admitted in the written statement filed in the said eviction petition. Mahadevan died on 17th August, 1976 leaving behind Sharda Devi, his widow. In fact Sharda Devi was the only heir of Mahadevan. The appellant/landlord served another notice dated 12th April, 1977 upon Sharda Devi terminating her tenancy. The receipt of this notice was also not disputed. The presenteviction petition was filed in August 1977. It was pleaded by the landlord that Mahadevan died on 17th August 1976 leaving behind only his widow Sharda Devi who at the time of death of Mahadevan was not financially dependent upon him. She was an earning hand and continued to be an earning hand, therefore, as pleaded in the eviction petition Sharda Devi was not entitled to continue to remain in occupation of the house after expiry of period of one year from the date of death of Mahadevan. On the date of institution of the eviction petition the period of one year had expired asstated in the eviction petition itself. Further it was pleaded that the premises was let out for residential purpose and neither respondent No. 1 Sharda Devi nor any member of her family had been residing therein since the end of January, 1977. Sharda Devi had gone abroad and remained abroad during all this period. This plea was for purposes of Clause (d) of Section 14 (1) of the Act. The plea regarding sub-letting was raised on the basis of allegation that Sharda Devi had sub-let, assigned and/or parted with possession of the premises to respondent No. 2 without obtaining the consent of the landlord in writing. It may be mentioned here that respondent No. 2 is a daughter of Sharda Devi from her previous husband. Therefore, respondent No. 2 is not an heir of Mahadevan, the original tenant. The respondents contested the eviction petition denying the material allegations contained in the eviction petition. No dispute, however, was raised about the facts that the premisesare residential, about the rate of rent, about service of notices etc. On merits it was stated by the respondents that Sharda Devi was not financially independent at the time of death of Mahadevan. It was stated that respondent No. 2 being the daughter of Sharda Devi from her previous marriage was entitled to reside in the house as a family member alongwith Sharda Devi, even though Sharda Devi had gone abroad for treatment purposes. Respondent No. 2 always continued to occupy the premises and reside therein at the relevant time. On the same basis the allegation of sub-letting, assigning or parting with possession of the premises was denied. The Add ). Rent Controller held that the landlord had failed to prove that Sharda Devi was not financially dependent on Mahadevan at the time of his death. He further held th it the grounds under Clauses (b)