( 1 ) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated November 11, 1987 by which he had affirmed the order of eviction passed by the Controller on the ground of eviction covered by clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

( 2 ) THE two courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that the tenant namely M/s. Albein Plywood Ltd. has sublet the premises to M/s. Sen and Company.

( 3 ) COUNCEL for the appellant has raised a question of jurisdiction of the Rent Controller in entertaining the eviction petition for want of permission under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956. He has produced on record a. notification dated April 20, 1957 SRO 1252 issued under Section 3 of the said Act showing that the property in question namely 2155 Desh Bandhu Gupta Road known as 8/4 Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, New Delhi is located in the slum area to which the provisions of the said Act apply. He has moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence in this respect As thenotification is published in the official Gazette a judicial notice of this notification can be taken. It is now not in dispute that the provisions of Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956 were applicable to the premises in question at the time the eviction petition was brought.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has REFERRED TO to judgment of the Supreme Court given in Civil Appeal No. 1906 of 1987 Mohd Usman and Others Vs. Mohd. Siddique 4 Another decided on August 26. 1987 wherein it has been new categorically laid down that the permission to initiate eviction proceedings is a pro-requisite as provided in Section 19 of the said Act. He has then REFERRED TO to Puran Chand Vs. Nathu @ Nathauli and Others S. A. O. No. 60 of 1970 decided on April 26, 1974 wherein it has been held by this Court that 17 unless the requisite permission as contemplated by Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 is obtained for initiating the proceedings of eviction under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Controller under the Act would have no jurisdiction to try such a petition and if eviction order is passed in absence of such permission such an order would be nullity and the objection with regard to order being nullity passed by the court which has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter can be raised even in the execution proceedings. There legal propositions are not being disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent before me and rightly so.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has however drawn my attention to the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act. 1956 particularly its preamble which lays down that the said Act is enacted for the improvement and clearance of slum are as in certain union territories and for protection of tenants in such areas from eviction. It is argued that in the present case a finding of fact has been given by the two courts below that the tenant had not been in physical possession of the premises at any point of time and thus such a tenant was not meant to be protected by the objects laid down in the preamble of the said Act. He has argued that where the facts are as have been proved in the present case that the tenant has never been in physical possession of the premises located in the slum area there could arise no occasion for considering as to whether he would or would not create a slum if evicted from the premises located in the areas to which provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act apply. He has argued that Section 19 should be read in consonance with the objects of the Act contained in the preamble.

( 6 ) IT is quite settled principle of law that if the language of the Section admits of no doubt and is clear then the objects given in the preamble need not be taken note of Section 19 clearly lays d