( 1 ) KAMPA Wati is the owner of the property in dispute, namely, first floor in premises No. 148-E, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, comprising two rooms. The property was let to Chander Kishore Sharma in 1961 on a rent of Rs. 55. 00 per month. The landlady filed an eviction petition on the grounds of default in payment of rent on 2/11/1976. It was alleged that the tenant had not paid the arrears of rent despite notice of demand. At the time the petition was filed, rent of Rs. 490. 00was in arrears. On 14/2/1977, she applied for amendment of the petition. The amended petition was filed on 12/4/1977, She pleaded an additional ground that the tenant had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of one room in favour of his son Chander Parkash, respondent No. 2, who is carrying on the watch repairing business in the name of Sheelak Watch Co. which was also added as a party. He is charging from him Rs. 50. 00 p. m. Respondent No. 2 did not appear, while respondent No. 1 filed a written statement denying the arrears of rent. He denied that he sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in favour of his son. He also pleaded that his son had no connection with Sheelak Watch Company nor was any such company run by him in the property in dispute.

( 2 ) THE learned Addl. Controller by his order dated 31-5-1979, in respect of arrears of rent under Clause (a) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) directed the tenant to deposit the same with effect from 1-6-1975 up-to-date at the rate of Rs, 55. 00 per month within one month. He further directed that the tenant will be entitled to adjust the amount already paid. If the tenant complied with the order he would be deemed to have availed of the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act and the eviction petition should stand satisfied. If the tenant failed to comply with the order, an order for recovery of the suit premises shall be deemed to have been passed in favour of the landlady and against the tenant.

( 3 ) WITH regard to ground under Clause (b) of the aforesaid proviso, the Addl. Controller held that Chander Parkash was proprietor of Sheelak Watch Co. but he worked in ihe premises as a member of the family and no question of parting with legal possession in his favour could arise. There was no evidence about subletting as between father and son. The eviction petition was filed on 2-11-1976. In that, the petitioner did not invoke this ground and even not was unable to give the date of parting with possession. This ground was, therefore, rejected.

( 4 ) ON appeal before the Rent. Control Tribunal the findings of the Addl. Controller with respect to the ground of eviction under Clause (a) were not challenged. Rather, it was separately contended by the landlady that the order of the Addl. Controller was not complied with which proceedings were finally disposed of by this court on 6-5-1983 in S. A. O. 311/81.

( 5 ) WITH regard to ground (b) the Tribunal accepted the appeal and directed eviction. The learned Tribunal noted that the attorney of the landlady, one Sultan Singh (AW 1) deposed that appellant No. I was the tenant and he had sublet one of the rooms to his son. Contrary to his own written statement, the tenant admitted that Sheelak Watch Co. was his sons and the said company had an account in a Bank in Chawri Bazar. The address of the company was also the property in dispute. Chander Parkash (RW 3) deposed that he was doing the business of watches which he has since left and he is now settled in Poona. He stated that he had issued some cheques in the name of the landlady. The learned Tribunal, therefore, held that Chander Parkash was the proprietor of Sheelak Watch Co. There is no such presumption that there can be no subletting or parting with possession or assignment of possession by the father in favour of the son. It relied upon Dr. Vijay Kumar v. Raghbir Singh, 1973 R. L. R. (SC) 587. The l