1. The tenants are the revision petitioners. The respondent landlord S.R. Mazda, Executor of the Estate of R.F. Mazda, filed the application for eviction of the tenants in respect of a non-residential premises on grounds of wilful default in payment of rent and subletting. The tenants denied both the grounds and on evidence the Rent Controller found that though there are arrears of rent, they were barred by limitation and therefore, it does not come under the phraseology of ‘wilful default’. With reference to the ground of ‘sub-letting’, the Rent Controller accepted the same and ordered eviction. On appeal the Appellate Authority confirmed the findings of the Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal. Now, the tenants have preferred this revision petition.

2. The case of the landlord was that the tenants who are running a hotel by name ‘Cafe National’ have sublet the premises unauthorisedly to a stranger, who is now running the said hotel. Of course, this was denied by the tenants. But, the landlord has let in overwhelming and clinching evidence, oral and documentary to prove the sublease. P.W.1 is the Executor of the Estate of the landlord and he is none else than the son