The Addl.
On that premise the petition for ejectment was dismissed.
Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal relying upon this admission of Avtar Singh and other oral evidence companycluded that Avtar Singh alone was in exclusive possession and that, therefore, subletting was proved as a fact.
Thus this appeal by special leave under Art.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.1985 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. Second Appeal From Order number 295 of 1981.
W.Z. 258/4, Subash Bazar, Nangal Raya, New Jail Road, New Delhi, and that he did number sublet the premises to Avtar Singh.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde and C.B. Nath Babu for the Appel lant.
849 of 1987.
M .L. Bhargava and Randbit Jain for the Respondents.
The High Court found that the tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises bearing No.
The following Order of the Court was delivered The appellant landlord had filed an application under Sec.
The Rent Controller and the Tribunal found that he sublet the demised premises to Avtar Singh, his brother and therefore ordered ejectment.
All the three companyrts companycurrently found that Gulzar Singh was the sole tenant.
14 1 b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short the Act for ejectment of the respondents.
