( 1 ) WHETHER the claim of respondent No. 2 to protection under the proviso to S. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, is justified or not, is the only question that this Second Appeal by the landlady raises.

( 2 ) HARI Kishan responent No. 2, for short, the objector, was a tenant in a portion of the property, of which the premises in dispute forms, part, in 1964, under one Ram Kishan, the owner of that portion. The objector, however, vacated that portion and later the same year came to occupy the premises in dispute, either as a tenant under the appellants, Gomti Devi, as alleged by the objector, or was inducted into it by one 0m Parkash, respondent No. 1, the so- called tenant, as alleged by the Landlady. In 1975, the landlady filed a petition against 0m Parkash, respondent No. 1, for his eviction from the premises in dispute on the allegation that he had sublet the premises to the objector in 1968 and the objector has been inoccupation thereof since then. The objector was not impleaded as a party. The written statement filed on behalf of 0m Parkash, which contains an indication that it was prepared by or through the counsel for the landlady, did not contest the