A person in occupation of premises with the landlord's authorisation or consent, but not as a tenant, may be entitled to the protection of the proviso to Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, if they have an independent title to the premises.

( 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 claim for eviction and an eviction order was obtained by the landlady on November, 24, 1975. The landlady sought execution of the order and obtained an order of lock-breaking on the basis of a report of the bailiff that the objector, who was in occupation, had locked and gone somewhere. The objector was accordingly dispossessed by breaking open of the lock. The objector filed objections subsequent to eviction under section 25 of the Act and prayed for the restoration of the premises on the ground that he had been in possession of it as a tenant under the landlady since August, 1964. It was further alleged that 0m Parkash had never been the tenant in respect of the said premises, and that the landlady had obtained the eviction order fraudulently in collusion with 0m Parkash. The claim of the objector was resisted by the landlady on the plea that the premises had been let out by her to 0m Parkash, who hid himself shifted to his brother s house after inducting the objector in 1968, At the trial of the objections, the objector produced copies of entries in the electoral roll. Exhibit A-1 to Exhibit A-8, Exhibit O. W. 6/4, an extract from the birth regular, besides a clerk of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi with the survey report. According to Exhibits A-1 to A-8, the name of the objector was recorded as a voter in 1965 with reference to the premises in dispute. It further indicates that the name of 0m Parkash was not entered as a voter with reference to the said premises. According to the copy of the birth register, O. W. 6/4, the wife of the objector gave birth to a child on February; 1966, and the address of the premises in dispute is indicated in the entry. According to O. W. 2, Clerk of the Municipal Corporation, the Suvery Report in respect of the property, which was prepared on June 24, 1967, indicated that one Hari Ram, an apparent mistake for Hari Kishan, is recorded as a tenant, but there is no person of the name of 0m Parkash entered as such. Parties also produced oral evidence and in the course of her statement, the landlady admitted that she was maintaining regular records with regard to payment of rent by 0m Parkash, but failed to produce the same. On the material on record, the Controller returned the finding that the objector had been in occupation of the premises in dispute since 1964; that 0m Parkash never occupied that part of the premises as a tenant and could not have, therefore, inducted the objector into the premises; that the objector had, therefore, been in possession of the premises in his own right, that the eviction order was the result of collusive proceedings, and the objector was therefore, entitled to the restoration of the demised premises and accordingly ordered the same. The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Contro