( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated September 30, 1991, of the Rent Control Tribunal by which he had dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants and also another appeal filed by alleged sub-tenant Raja Ram against the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller dated May 15, 1989, on the ground of eviction covered by clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 2 ) FACTS, in brief, are that Sh. R. L. Kapur, landlord, had filed an eviction petition on the grounds of subletting, assignment and parting with possession of the different portions of the demised premises and on the ground of substantial damage. The ground of substantial damage was negatived by the Additional Rent Controller as well as by the Tribunal and no longer survives for consideration in these appeals.

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, shopno. 21,jangpura Extension, New Delhi, which consists of two shop rooms, store, shaft, WC godown, front verandah located on the ground floor as shown in red colour in plan filed alongwith the petition was let out to Smt. Prakash Wati in the name of hersole proprietary firm-M/s. Kailash Kumar Prakash Wati with effect from October 1, 1958. Initially Smt. Prakash Wati Kailash Kumar was shown as a firm through its proprietor Smt. Prakash Wati as respondent No. 2. The petition was filed on November 2, 1981. Later on, on the application moved by Sh. Kailash Kumar s/o Smt. Prakash Wati he was allowed to be joined as respondent No. 3 and amended petition showing him as respondent No. 3 was filed on February 5,1985. It was averred in the petition that Smt. Prakash Wati being the sole proprietor of the firm was having M/s. Shakti Sweets Shop in the premises in question but later on without the consent of the landlord she had parted with possession of the different portions (if the said shop P7 to different persons. Specifically it was averred that portion marked ABCD in the siteplan had been parted with and sublet to M/s. Ballabh Investment Private Limited and also to M/s. Anand Estate Agency and now to Shri Anand Sharma, who is carrying on. the estate business in that portion, whereas the portion marked CDEF excluding portion marked PQRS had been sublet and parted with to M/s. Meenakshi Beauty Parlour and the remaining portion PQRS in the said siteplan has been sublet and parted with to Shri Raja Ram, Pan Shop owner. It was specifically mentioned in para 19 of the petition that out of the tenanted premises, the shop and store had been carved out and had been sublet and parted with to Raja Ram Panwala,who is doing his independent business of Pan Shop and the main shop stood parted with to M/s. Meenakshi Beauty Parlour whereas the verandah was sublet and parted with earlier to some other persons, namely, Dinesh Sharma and one Golgappa seller and presently to M/s. Ballabh Investment Private Limited and M/s. Anand Estate Agency of Sh. Anand Sharma. Sh. Anand Sharma is the husband of Smt. Prakashwati, respondent No. 1 and father of Sh. Kailash Kumar, respondent No. 3.

( 4 ) IN the written statement Smt. Prakash Wati pleaded that in November 1964, on Kailash Kumar having attained the age of majority and who was looking after the business in the shop and there had accrued heavy arrears of rent and the petitioner-landlord had pressed for early payment of arrears amounting to Rs. 3,700. 00 , Kailash Kumar agreed to pay the arrears subject to the condition that the landlord accepted him as co-tenant and there occurred a change in the tenancy inasmuch as the tenancy stood created in favour of Smt. Prakash Wati and Kailash Kumar and the rent receipts were duly issued in the said names on Kailash Kumar being accepted as co-tenant. It was further pleaded by her that there existed no sole proprietary ship firm by the name of M/s. Prakash Wati Kailash Kumar and thus, respondent No. 2 is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

( 5 ) ON merits it was pleaded t