That finding was companyfirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.
On or about September 10, 1959 the respondent landlord let out the premises in suit to the appellant on a rent of Rs.
125/ per month.
dated the 29th May, 1970 of the High Court of Delhi in Second Appeal No.
The premises companysisted of a shop.
25 D of 1966.
On 1 9 1962 the respondent applied under section 14 of the above Act to the Rent Controller, Delhi for evicting the appellant on the ground that she had sub let the entire premises to one Sohan Singh who, according to the respondent, was running a business under the name of Royal Dispensing Chemists and Druggists in the shop.
59 of 1958.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
She alleged that Sohan Singh was her husband and from the time of the lease the business of a Chemist was being run there in the premises by her husband and she also occasionally helped him in the running of the business.
It was companytended before the companyrt by the respondent that two substantial questions of law and fact were involved in the appeal one relating to the status of the appellant as wife and the other whether on the facts found the ground of sub letting had been established.
It was further alleged that the appellant was charging a fabulous amount as rent from her sub tenant Sohan Singh.
M. Tarkunde, M. N. Bombhra and Saroja Gopala Krishnan for the appellant.
The Rent Controller was of the view that the appellant was the legally Wedded wife of Sohan Singh.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order.
Hardyal Hardy, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja, A. C. Sehgal and P. Gupta for the respondent.
In any event he held, Sohan Singh and the appellant were living together as husband and wife and, therefore, there was numberquestion of any sub letting by the appellant of the premises.
So this appeal by special leave.
Accordingly, he gave an order for evicting the appellant.
The appellant in her written statement admitted the tenancy but denied sub letting.
The Judgment of the Court was, delivered by PALEKAR, J. This is an appeal by special leave from an order passed by the single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, No.
Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent went in second appeal to the High Court under section 39 1 of the Act.
1475 of 1970.
