Parting with possession of the premises in dispute, as contemplated by proviso (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, requires that there has been parting with legal possession.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) against the Judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated December 18, 1962, by which he set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated August 25, 1962, and ordered the eviction of the appellant tenant from the premises in dispute.

( 2 ) THE ficts. re that the appellant tenant Gurdial Singh is a tenant under the respondents of Quarter No 10 Block No. 205, C. Plot No. 69-A, bazar Road, Bengali Market, New Delhi. OB a monthly rent of Rs. 23. 91. On December 31, 1959, an application was brought by the respondent-landlord against the appellant under Section 14 of the Act on allegations that he had sub-let assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in dispute to respondent No. 4, Dr. Jagde v Singh Mummick, without his written consent and also on the ground that neither the tenant nor any member of his family had been residing in the premises in question for a period of 6 months immediately before the filing of the ejectment application. The appellant-tenant admitted the tenancy and the agreed rate of rent. He, however, controverted the allegation that he had sub-let or assigned or parted with possession of the premises in dispute to respondent No. 4. It was alleged by the appellant that respondent No. 4 was his relative (his wife s brother) and that he has never parted with possession of the premises. The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated August 25, 1962, held that no sub-letting or parting with possession of the property by the appellant in favour of respondent No 4 was proved. He found that respondent No. 4 was the brother of the wife of the appellant tenant and had been merely allowed to occupy the premises as a relation because he had been evicted from another house in which he was living He also found that there was no evidence, not even a suggestion that any rent had been paid by respondent No. 4 to the appellant He also found that there was evidence which he was prepared to believe that the house-hold effects and furniture of appellant-tenant had been lying in the premises. As regards the ground of non-occupation of the premises for a period of 6 months immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application, the Additional Rent Controller found that the appellant had been nested in Delhi from 11th August, 1959 to 5th October, 1989 and that he during this period had been residing at Delhi along with his family sequently found that the appellant did reside in the house in dispute within 6 months before the prevent application was filed i. e 31st December, 1959. He, therefore, dismissed the application.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED against the said order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal agreed with the Rent Controller that the appellant had resided in the premises in dispute within 6 months before the date of the application for ejectment i. e. 31st December, 1959 and consequently held that this ground was not available to the landlord-respondent. He also agreed With the Rent Controller that there was no proof of the payment of the rent fry respondent No 4 to the appellant and, therefore, it was not possible to spell out the case of subletting from the evidence on record and he, therefore, held that it was not the case of sub-letting. The Rent Control Tribunal, however, held that even assuming for the sake of argument that in a portion of these premises some house-hold effects of the tenant continued to lie while he was posted at Bombay, it is a case of parting with possession of a portion of the premises in dispute as respondent No. 4 was admittedly in possession of the portion of the house. He repelled the contention of the appellant-tenant that respondent No. 4 was only a licensee and was allowed to use the premises as according to the Rent Control Tribunal it did not matter whether the premises were used byrespondent No. 4 as