The Appellant purchased the premises from its previous owner in the year 1974.
It was further stated that in a portion of the premises, Respondent No.1 was having a provision store for selling pulses, rice, tea, oil, ghee, etc.
In the Eviction Petition, the Appellant stated that Respondent No.1 had sub let a part of the premises to Respondent No.2 who was running a ration shop.
The Tribunal set aside the Judgment of the Rent Controller in the appeal filed by the Respondents.
01.01.1977.
In the written statement, the Respondents denied the averments made in the Eviction Petition and stated that the ration shop was being run by Respondent No.1, though the licence was in the name of Respondent No.2.
The Appellant issued a numberice terminating the tenancy on the ground that Respondent No.1 had parted with the possession of the premises without his companysent and that he had caused substantial damage to the premises.
and the other portion was being utilized for a fair price shop.
Respondent No.1 became the tenant of a shop measuring 138 square feet in Karol Bagh, New Delhi after a family Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEETU KHAJURIA partition in the year 1963 on payment of a rent of Rs.54/ per Date 2017.07.19 160643 IST Reason month.
The second appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi, aggrieved by which the Appellant has filed the present appeal.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
The petition filed under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the Appellant Landlord for eviction of the Respondents was allowed by the Rent Controller.
It was also stated that the entire premises was being used as a fair price shop after 01.10.1976 and that Respondent No.2 was taken as a partner by Respondent No.1 w.e.f.
