SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE respondents filed an eviction petition against the appellants as far back as in the year 1983 in respect of premises bearing No. E-46/2, Hauz Khas, New delhi on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (a), (b) and (l) of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). The respondents alleged that appellant No. 1 herein was a tenant in the shop, which had been sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession to appellant No. 2 without the consent of the respondents/landlord. Appellant No. 1 was alleged to be in arrears of rent, which had not been cleared despite the notice of demand and it was further claimed that the premises were required for rebuilding purposes.

( 2 ) THE appellants filed a common written statement pleading that one Mr. Bhoj Raj was the landlord, who had since passed away and after his demise his wife and children had succeeded to the property. The respondents were alleged to have no concern with the premises. The receipt of any notice for demand of rent was denied. The appellants are real brothers and it was claimed that appellant No. 1 was running the business of dry-cleaning in the premises in pursuance to the license issued by the competent authority and he was the proprietor of the shop. Appellant No. 2 was assisting and helping appellant No. 1 right from the inception of the tenancy and the business was being carried on by both the appellants though appellant No. 1 is in actual physical possession and control of the premises. The other allegations were also denied.

( 3 ) THE parties led their evidence and in terms of the order dated 26. 10. 1994 of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC for short) it was found that the grounds for sub-letting or reconstruction of the premises were not made out and thus the petition was dismissed insofar as the grounds under Section 14 (1) (b) and (l) of the said Act are concerned. However, it was found that the respondents had succeeded in establishing that appellant No. 1 was in arrears of rent and thus the criteria for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent as set out under section 14 (1) (a) of the said Act had been made out. However, this being the first default, appellant No. 1 was held entitled to the benefit under Section 14 (2) of the said Act.

( 4 ) THE result of the aforesaid adjudication was that both the appellants and the respondents were aggrieved by the order. The appellants were aggrieved by the finding arrived at that appellant No. 1 was in arrears of rent while the respondents filed the appeal aggrieved by the rejection of the ground of sub-letting under Section 14 (1) (b) of the said Act. Both these appeals were decided by a common judgement dated 19. 1. 2001 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT for short ). The appeal filed by the respondents succeeded as sub-letting was made out while the appeal filed by appellant No. 1 in respect of his not being in arrears of rent was dismissed. The appellants have thus filed the present second appeal challenging both the aspects of the order of the ARCT.

( 5 ) IT may be noticed at the threshold that the present appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the said Act, which is only on a question of law. This provision stands deleted by the amendment of the said Act in 1988 but proceedings initiated prior to the amendment are amenable to a second appeal and it is in view thereof that this second appeal has been entertained.

( 6 ) IT may be added at this stage that the appellants filed CM No. 95/2001 seeking leave to lead additional evidence. It is alleged in the application that the appellants had given all the documents under their possession pertaining to the case to their counsel before the trial court and that appellant No. 1 is illiterate while appellant No. 2 is only a Matriculate. The appellants were under the bonafide belief that all the documents given to their counsel were filed before the trial court but on inspection of the trial