- (1.)Late G. K. Bhatnagar, who has expired during the pendency of these proceedings and whose legal representatives have been brought on record in his place as the appellants, owned a suit shop let out to the tenant-respondent on 1/5/1966 on payment of Rs. 50. 00 by way of rent and Rs. 6. 00 by way of electricity charges. For the purpose of convenience we would refer to Late G. K. Bhatnagar as 'landlord' and the respondent as 'tenant'. On 28/5/1979 proceedings for eviction were initiated by the landlord by filing a petition before the rent controller on the ground under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) alleging that the tenant had, without the permission of the landlord, sub-let the premises and parted with possession of the whole of the premises in favour of one jagdish Chander. According to the tenant- respondent, there was no sub-letting: jagdish Chander was taken into partnership by him in his pre-existing business run in the suit shop under "deed of partnership' dated 13/10/1978.
(2.)The rent controller found that there has been no sub-letting of the premises and, therefore, directed the petition to be dismissed. The landlord preferred an appeal which was allowed by the appellate authority, which reversed the finding of the rent controller and directed the petition for eviction to be allowed. The tenant preferred a second appeal before the High Court under section 39 (2) of the Act. The appeal has been allowed. The High Court has set aside the judgment of the appellate authority and restored the one by the rent controller.
(3.)In the evidence adduced by the parties on behalf of the landlord, the landlord alone (late G. K. Bhatnagar) appeared in the witness box and produced no other witness. The respondent-tenant examined himself and also produced Jagdish Chander, the alleged sub-tenant, in the witness box. deed of partnership dated 13/10/1978 was exhibited in evidence by the respondent-tenant this Deed of partnership when tendered in evidence before the rent controller, was accompanied by a general power of attorney of the same date executed by the respondent-tenant in favour of Jagdish chander. This power of attorney, though not formally tendered in evidence and neither formally proved nor exhibited, has nevertheless been taken into consideration and read in evidence inasmuch as the same was produced in court by the respondent-tenant and could have been, in the opinion of the appellate authority, relied on by the landlord for the purpose of substantiating his case