The statement of a co-defendant is not admissible as evidence against another co-defendant, and a statement made by a witness in a former judicial proceeding is not relevant under Section 33 of the Evidence Act unless the former judicial proceeding was between the same parties.

( 1 ) THESE are two appeals by the tenant from the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated July 27,1978.

( 2 ) THESE are the facts. The respondent landlord brought a petition for eviction of his tenant Bhagwan Singh from premises No. 116 and 126. Banarsi Dass Building, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The ground of ejectment was that the tenant Bhagwan Singh had sublet premises bearing No. 126 to Budh Singh, party respondent No. 2 in the eviction petition, without the consent in writing of the landlord. This is the ground covered by clause (b) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act ).

( 3 ) THE Additional Rent Controller passed an order of eviction on the ground of subletting. On appeal his judgment was affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. From the decision of the Tribunal the tenant has brought an appeal (S. A. O. 313 of 1978 ).

( 4 ) THE other appeal (SAO 312 of 1978) of the tenant is from a finding and not from an order. A question was raised for the first time in appeal before the Tribunal whether there were two separate tenancies, one in respect of premises No. 1 16 and the other of premises No. 126. The written statement was allowed to be amended to raise this new plea of two tenancies by the tenant. The Tribunal required the Additional Controller to record evidence on this new plea and return a finding on this point. The Additional Controller found that there were two separate tenancies. Against this finding the landlord preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. I do not think such an appeal lay when the appellant tribunal was seized of the matter and had only required the Additional Controller to take evidence and return his finding on the plea in accordance with R. 25, 26 and 28 of 0. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The finding of two tenancies returned by the controller was a finding which could be challenged in the pending appeal. The parties have a right to present a memorandum of objections to any finding within the time to be fixed by the appellate court. (0. 41 r. 26, Civil Procedure Code ). But no party can prefer a separate appeal from the finding.

( 5 ) THUS there were two appeals before the Tribunal. One was by the tenant from the order of ejectment and the other by the landlord against the finding of two tenancies. The Tribunal heard both the appeals together. On the question of two tenancies it did not agree with the Additional Controller. The Tribunal found that two tenancies had merged into one as one consolidated receipt for rent was being issued by the landlord. I have not allowed the question of two tenancies to be reagitated before me by the tenant because in my opinion it is essentially a finding of fact. In the appeal against the order of ejectment the Tribunal confirmed the decision of the Additional Controller that the tenant had sublet the premises.

( 6 ) THE main point urged before me in these appeals by the tenant is that the order of eviction on the ground of subletting is erroneous. On the point of subletting the evidence disclosed that Budh Singh, the alleged subtenant, was the father-in-law of the tenant Bhagwan Singh. Budh Singh was an old man. At the time of his death he was 90 years of age. He was purblind. He was unable to support himself because of his failing health and eyesight. He was staying with his son-in-law. He was residing in quarter No. 126. He had a separate ration card. These facts were stated by Bhagwan Singh in his evidence. But he categorically denied that he had sublet any part of the premises to his father-in-law Budh Singh.

( 7 ) IN his evidence the landlord produced a certified copy of a statement dated September 17, 1969 made by Budh Singh in Suit No. 49 of 1969 entitled communist Party of India v. Kishan Chand. The certified copy shows that Communist Party had filed a petition for the determination of standard rent under S. 9 of the Act against the present landlord Kishan Chand. In that case Budh Singh had appe