S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - (1.) Indefatigable stamina to litigate has been exhibited by the parties in this case in which proceedings started on 5-2-1965 when the respondent, as landlord of the premises in question, filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for the eviction of the petitioner on the ground of sub-letting. This application was allowed on 29th August, 1974 by the Addl. Rent Controller and the petitioner was directed to be evicted as it was established on record that the premises had been sub-let by the petitioner in contravention of the prohibitory provisions of the Act.
(2.) The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Rent Controller in an appeal filed before the Rent Control Tribunal which was allowed on 3rd March, 1978 and the eviction order was set aside. The respondent-landlord approached the Delhi High Court in second appeal (SAO No. 217 of 1978) which was allowed on 26th September, 1994 and the case was remanded to the Tribunal to rehear the appeal. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by judgment dated 7-7-1997 and the finding recorded earlier by the Addl. Rent Controller that the premises had been sub-let was upheld. The petitioner, thereafter, filed S.A.No. 48 of 1997 in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed on 3-12-1997. Now the matter is before us. Just as every battle has a D-Day, so also this long litigative battle must come to an end today.
(3.) The only contention raised before us in this Special Leave Petition is that the finding recorded by the Rent Controller as also the Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, on the question of sub-letting is erroneous as they have not recorded a positive finding that there was payment of consideration by the so-called sub-tenants to the petitioner for parting with the part of possession of the disputed premises. It is contended that unless payment of consideration was established as a fact between the tenant and the sub-tenant, the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be allowed. We are not impressed by the argument.;