By this judgment the High Court set aside the companycur rent findings of fact given by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, and the learned Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi, that the All India Jain Digamber Parishad hereinafter referred to as the Parishad had sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises, Rishi Bhawan, let out to it in May 1944 by Maharaj Krishan, appellant before us hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff.
The relevant facts may briefly be stated.
He further stated that defendant No.
He admitted that the telephone in Rishi Haven was in the name defendant No.
It was denied that defendant No.
The paper of Digamber Jain Parishad shall be benefited from me but the companydition shall be this that the meetings of the Parishad shall companytinue to be held in the house.
8 was an old member of the Parishad and he was the editor of VIR paper.
They filed a joint written statement and defendant No.
Defendant No.
The attorney of the plaintiff, as P. W. 7, stated in his evidence that before defendant No.
8 without the permission of the plaintiff.
He stated that if defendant No.
2 to 5 and 7 did number appear and companytest the suit, but defendants Nos.
It was further stated that the paper VIR is published on behalf of All India Jain Digamber Parishad.
In cross examination he companyld number explain as to why in the companyies of VIR No.
5, 7 and 8 respondents Nos.
8 does any personal work of his own there, then Jain Parishad has number given any special written permission in this regard.
The main evidence in the case on behalf of the defendants was given by Janendra Kumar Jain, defendant No.
1 7 respondent Nos.
He stated that he had been a member of the Parishad for the last 20 25 years and that he came in occupation of the house under dispute in about 1950.
8 respondent No.
2 8 in the present appeal and Janendra Kumar Jain, defendant No.
This also that I shall pay the present rent and it shall be treated as donation to the Parishad.
8, and it is his evidence which the High Court held has been misread by the companyrts below.
Defendants Nos.
8 was a sub tenant of the Parishad or that he had been in occupation of the premises in that capacity.
This defendant is President of VIR Editorial Board and chief Adviser of VIR.
8 also filed a separate written statement.
1, 6 to 8 resisted the claim of the plaintiff.
1 in this appeal for a decree for ejectment against the respondents as well as for the recovery of arrears of rent on a number of grounds, one ground being that the Parishad had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the premises in dispute in favour of defendant No.
He further stated I was President of the Jain Shitake Parishad.
He stated that regular accounts were kept by the Parishad and the expenditure towards the running of the paper was entered into the accounts of the Parishad, but he did number produce any records of the Parishad.
8 is having his office in that capacity in that building The Parishad is holding the office of the VIR in the premises in dispute since the time it was let out to them.
The work of paper Veer shall go on and the expenses of the house shall number devolve upon the Parishad.
In this capacity I had talks with Digamber Jain Parishad, and it was settled that I can companye to this house under dispute.
1 to 4 6 respondents Nos.
8 admitted that the Parishad was the tenant of the plaintiff but denied that the premises were let out to the Parishad for the residence of its Secretary.
I am Chief of the Editorial Board of Veer paper and I am also head of its companymittee.
21, Darya Ganj, has been mentioned as the place of printing and publishing of VIR.
Shri Banwari Lal Jain, who is described as editor, publisher printer of VIR paper stated that defendant No.
8 moved into the premises, Shri Ugar Sen and Ram Lal, Secretary, and Shri Bhagat Ram lived there.
Maharaj Krishan brought a suit on July 8, 1957, against the members of the said Parishad defendants Nos.
He denied that he himself resided in this house.
8 appealed but numbere of the other defendants filed an appeal.
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court, Delhi, accepting the revision under Section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 XXXVIII of 1952 here with referred to as the Act, filed by Janendra Kumar Jain, respondent before us, hereinafter called defendant No.
Shri Bhagat Ram, Secretary All India Jain Digamber Parishad, stated that the house was taken on rent for the purpose of the office of the Parishad and Shri Ugar Sen Jain did number live in this house.
