( 1 ) THE appellant landlord failed both before the Controller and in the first appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal to obtain an order of eviction against the respondents on the ground that the tenants Respondents 1 to 3 have sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of a part of the premises to Respondent No. 4, their sub-tenant, within the meaning of proviso (b) to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) which runs as follows:

" (B) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord".

( 2 ) THE reasons why the application for eviction was dismissed by the Controller and the dismissal was upheld by the Bent Control Tribunal in the first appeal were as follows:

(1) The landlord was barred by constructive res judicata from making the application for the eviction of the respondents under proviso (b) to Section 14 (1) of the Act, and (2) Respondent No. 4 was in possession of a part of the premises from before 1-3-1956 when the premises were let by the l