The main legal point established is that sub-tenants must obtain written permission for sub-letting and provide a written notice of sub-tenancy to the landlord to be eligible for protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J.

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 20.01.2023 passed in RCT No. 04/2022 whereby the first appeal of respondent no.1/landlord was allowed and the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter as "DRC Act") was allowed and a decree of eviction was passed against the petitioners.

2. Without going into the details of the facts, this Court has culled out the facts as noted in Eviction Petition No.111/2009 dated 11.02.2016, as follows:

"Petitioner is the landlord of premises in question, which are non residential in nature. Said premises were initially let out to Pratap Bank Limited in 1944 by M/s Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad HUF, which remained as an HUF till 31.12.1949, when it was disrupted and a partnership under the name and style of Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad, came into existence, w.e.f. 01.01.1950. Pratap Bank Limited, subsequently amalgamated with Laxmi Commercial Bank Limited w.e.f. 10.12.1961 and later on said Laxmi Commercial Bank Limited further amalgamated with respondent no.1 w.e.f. 23.08.1985. Since January 2008, respondent no. 1 in arrears of rent, at the rate of Rs.575 per month. Petitioner has come to know through reply, in response to its RTI application that respondent no. 1 has illegally and unauthorizedly, without permission of petitioner and consent in writing of petitioner has sub-letted, assigned or parted with the possession of premises in question to respondent no. 2 to 6 and it is respondent no. 2 to 6 who are in exclusive possession of different portion of premises in question since 09.06.1952. Respondent no. 2 is in possession of portion Marked A, in the site plan, respondent no. 3 is in possession of portion Marked B in the site plan, respondent no. 4 is in possession of portion Marked C in the site plan, respondent no. 5Jin the possession of portion Marked Din the site plan and respondent no. 6 is in the possession of portion Marked E in the site plan. Respondent no. 2 is paying rent of Rs.180 per month to respondent no. 1, respondent no. 3 is paying rent of Rs.165 per month to respondent no. 1, respondent no. 4 is paying Rs.80 per month to respondent no. 1, respondent no. 5 is paying Rs.187.50 per month to respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 6 is paying Rs.115 per month to respondent no. I. Hence, petitioner has filed present petition for eviction of the said respondents on the ground of illegal sub-letting, u/s 14(1)(b)DRC Act."

3. Mr. S.C. Singhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/sub-tenants submits that the appeal filed by respondent no.1/landlord before the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter as "RCT") was one under Section 38 of the DRC Act. Learned counsel submits that it is well settled law of the land that an appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act is purely on questions of law that may arise between the parties and not an appeal which is entertained on the merits of the matter.

4. Mr. Singhal submits that a substantial question of law ought to have been framed first and a decision ought to have been rendered thereon by the RCT. Having regard to the fact that the RCT neither framed a question of law nor rendered any decision thereon, the impugned order would be unsustainable in law.

5. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel further submits that the entire impugned judgment is replete with references to facts and finding of facts and not even one single question of law has been framed. On that basis, Mr. Singhal submits that the impugned order ought to be set aside.

6. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, Mr. Singhal invites attention of this Court to the application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as "CPC") filed by the petitioner and the documents annexed thereto to submit that even on facts, the impugned judgment is unsustainable.

7. Mr. Singhal, learned counsel submits that the documents which