the trial judge found that there was no evidence that the landlord was ever companysulted before a portion of the bungalow was sublet to dr.
the case of the tenant was that the sub tenancy commenced in the year 1951 that is to say before the passing of the act of 1952 and the tenant was number required to obtain the written companysent of the landlord to sublet admittedly in this case no written companysent was proved.
if so when and to what effect.
p20 and was acting on ex.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated may 7 1957 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in civil revision application number 144 d of 1957.
the decision of the trial judge was companyfirmed on appeal by the additional district judge delhi.
mohani jain had alleged that she was living as a sub tenant from the end of 1951 but the tenant had denied this fact.
the proceedings before the rent companytrol authorities ended in a companypromise but the admission of the tenant was relied upon to support the companyclusion that the sub tenancy companymenced after the act.
in reaching the latter conclusion the trial judge made a reference to a dispute between the tenant and dr.
the suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the appellants against the respondent rao girdhari lal chowdhury for his eviction on the ground among others that he had sub let a portion of the bungalow after the companymencement of the delhi and ajmer rent companytrol act 1952 38 of 1952 to one dr.
p 20 which contained a material admission by the tenant before the present dispute had begun.
in those proceedings dr.
mohani jain for fixation of standard rent before the rent companytrol authorities.
234 6 0 excluding taxes.
mohani jain without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord as required by s. 13 1 b i of the act.
gurbachan singh and harbans singh for the respondent.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 94 of 1959.
bishan narain r. mahalingier and b. c. misra for the appellants.
the issue on which the decisions below have differed was framed by the sub judge first class delhi in the following terms did the plaintiff companysent to the sub letting of parts of the demised premises by the defendant ?
was delivered by hidayatullah j. kapur j. delivered a separate judgment.
mohani jain and further that the sub tenancy was created after june 9 1952 the date on which the act came into force.
this bungalow was given to the respondent by gauri shankar on a monthly rent of rs.
the defence was that the original companytract of tenancy was entered into sometime in 1940 and a term in the companytract gave the tenant right to sub let.
hidayatullah j. the appellants in this appeal by special leave are the sons of one gauri shankar who owned a bungalow knumbern as 5 haily road new delhi.
the trial judge decreed the suit.
it was alleged that a letter written by the tenant which embodied the terms of the tenancy was in the possession of the landlord and a demand was made for its production.
december 5.
the judgment of sinha j. hidayatullah and shah jj.
