thereafter on may 22 1962 the 1st respondent filed a suit in the companyrt of the senior subordinate judge delhi against the appellant and respondent 2 praying for a decree for a permanent injunction against the appellant and the 2nd respondent restraining the appellant from taking possession of the said premises.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated march 4 1965 of the punjab high companyrt circuit bench at delhi in civil regular second appeal number 125 d of 1964.
the said act came into force on december 40 1961.
gauri dayal for the respondents.
the said plea was rejected in the first instance by the learned subordinate judge on appeal by the learned senior subordinate judge and on second appeal by the high companyrt.
the act came into force subsequently.
hence the appeal.
k. sen e. c. agarwal and p. c. agarwala for the appellant.
appellant 1st defendant is the owner of premises number 6022 gali mandir wali arya samaj delhi.
when that decree was sought to be executed against the 2nd respondent the 1st respondent obstructed delivery of possession of the premises on the ground that he as a sub tenant had become a tenant under the provisions of the act.
it is number necessary to state the other defences as numberhing turns on them in this appeal.
there the landlord terminated the tenancy before the said act came into force filed a suit for ejectment and obtained a decree for eviction on june 23 1962 after the said act came into force.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 467 of 1966.
the appellant obtained a decree for eviction against the 2nd respondent on january 30 1959.
on january 30 1959 the appellant obtained a decree for ejectment against the 2nd respondent from the companyrt of the subordinate judge delhi.
to that suit the 1st respondent the sub tenant was number made a party.
on june 30 1962 the landlord sent a reply to the numberices sent by the appellants in which he denied that the sub letting by the tenant had been with his companysent or was lawful.
ram saran das res pondent number 2 herein was the tenant of the appellant in respect of the said premises and ram kishan das respondent number 1 herein was a sub tenant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao c. j. this appeal by special leave raises the question of the companystruction of some of the provisions of the delhi rent companytrol act 1958 act 59 of 1958 hereinafter called the act.
the executing companyrt rejected his claim.
