( 1 ) THIS is a second appeal from the order of the Tribunal dated July 18,1981 dismissing the appeal of the appellants against the order of the Addl. Controller dated December 1, 1978 directing their eviction from the shop in dispute.

( 2 ) ON January 12,1976 Siri Chand Gupta, respondent/landlord brought a petition for recovery of possession of the shop No. WZ 258/4. Subhash Bazar, Nangal Raya, New Jail Road. New Delhi on the averments that the said shop had been let out by him to Gulzar Singh (appellant No. 1) on a monthly rent of Rs. 80. 00 in May, 1968 and he had sub let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the shop to Avtar Singh (appellant No. 2) without his consent in writing It was also averred that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent due from December 1, 1972 in spite of notice of demand.

( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by the appellants. Main pleas raised were that the shop had been let out to both of them. They were real brothers and living and carrying on business jointly and there was no question of any sub-letting, assigning or parting with possession. They had been tendering the rent from time to time. A sum of Rs. 1760/ was even sent by money order but the landlord refused to accept it.

( 4 ) LEARNED Addl. Controller held that the shop in dispute had been let out only to Gulzar Singh. He had neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent within two months of the notice of demand, the tender of rent by 236 both of them bymoney order being an invalid tender. The tenant, however, had complied with the order under Section 15 (1) of the Delhi Rent. Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ) and was therefore entitled to the benefit under action 14 (2) of the Act,. He further found that the tenant had parted with the possession of the shop in favour of Avtar Singh without the consent of the landlord in writing. Consequently an order tor recovery of possession under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act was made in favour of the landlord. Affirming these findings the appeal filed by the appellants, was dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence this second appeal.

( 5 ) THE question, whether the shop in dispute had been let out by the respondent in favour of Gulzar Singh alone or in favour of both the appellants, was necessarily a question of fact. The concurrent finding of the. Courts below on this question could not be assailed in the second appeal. I find no infirmity justifying interference in second appeal. The finding is based on documentary evidence, namely, the rent receipts which were in favour of Guizar Singh only. Besides, Guizar Singh, on June 20, 1968 i. e. soon after taking the shop on lease, made an application for getting the shop registered under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act. 1954. In the said application he had shown himself as the occupier or the employer of M/s. Standard Cloth House, shop No. 258/4, Nangal Raya, Jail Road, New Delhi . Under the column "names of members of employer s family working in the shop" he mentioned the name of avtar Singb his real brother . These entries show that Avtar Singh was working as a family member and not as the owner of the business. This circumstance corroborates the version of the landlord.

( 6 ) THE only infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant was that in the rent receipts the name of the father of Guizar Singh has been shown as Avtar Singh though admittedly Guizar Singh was the son of Dewan Singh. This misdescription in the name of the father of Gulzar Singh, in my view, would not make Avtar Singh a joint tenant. Had the shop been let out to both Gulzar Singh and Avtar Singh there was no occasion for describing the name of the tenant as "gulzar Singh s/o Avtar Singh" in. the rent receipts The view taken by the two courts below on this point is correct and calls for no interference.

( 7 ) IT was then contended that the finding of the Tribunal that the rent sent by money order was not a valid tender was errone