Order.- On two grounds, firstly that there was wilful default and secondly that there was subletting without authority, the petitioner, as landlord, filed an application against the principal tenant impleading also the alleged sub-tenant as a party. By the time the application for eviction came up for hearing, it is the common case that the alleged subtenant vacated. The principal tenant took up the position that there was no sub-leasing at all without authority and he also denied that there was ever a wilful default. On the other hand, he pleaded that it was customary for the landlord to receive the rent once in two months and that such rents were sent by money order. The rents for the months of November and December, 1973 and January, 1974, which are subject-matters of the petition in question, were sent by money order in February, 1974. and received by the petitioner landlord on 9th February, 1974. In those circumstances, the principal tenant pleaded that there was no design or a contumacious conduct on his part in having avoided payment of the rent as alleged and, therefore, that the application should be dismissed. The Rent Controller agreed with the landlord and directed evic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document