the suit was filed before the additional rent companytroller and the same was companytested on various grounds.
the high companyrt on an analysis of the evidence and relevant authorities came to the companyclusion that there was numbersubstantial question of law and dismissed the second appeal.
the tribunal on an analysis of evidence and facts came to the companyclusion that there was numbermerit in the appeal and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the eviction order.
the tenant in his cross examination had stated that he had sent partnership document and form ii to the income tax department.
the respondent herein filed the petition against the appellant herein jagan nath under section 14 1 a and 14 1 b of the delhi rent companytrol act 1958 hereinafter called the act for eviction of the appellant from the premises companysisting of one room forming part of premises number n 80 kirti nagar new delhi as the appellant herein had number paid rent with effect from 1st may 1975 till 30th april 1977 at the rate of rs.75 per month despite service of the demand numberice dated 8th january 1976.
we are of the opinion that the rent tribunal was therefore right in refusing the amendment on the basis of the aforesaid principle.
it was companytended that the petition was number maintainable because of number joinder of shri baldev raj bindra and sat pal bindra.
the tenant had numberconcern with the business carried on in the demised premises and the tenant had retired.
he died during the pendency of this appeal here.
there was an increase in rent in july 1970.
the said tenant was in exclusive possession of the premises and was carrying on his business therein with which it was stated baldev raj and sat pal had numberconcern.
from the judgment and order dated 29.8.84 of the delhi high companyrt in s.a.o.
no demand numberice was ever served upon the tenant.
the other ground was the ground of eviction claimed by the landlord for subletting assignment or parting with the possession of the premises in question by the tenant hl favour of his sons baldev raj and sat pal bindra.
the landlord in his deposition had stated that since 1st july 1971 baldev raj and satpal were running their business in the name of m s. bindra tent house in partnership and they were in possession of the premises in question.
his sons have been substituted.
it was stated that shri baldev raj bindra and sat pal bindra are the sons of the original appellant since deceased.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1127 of 1985.
they are the sons of the tenant since deceased and had companystituted a hindu undivided family.
rajinder sachhar and mrs.
it was the further case of the respondent herein that the appellant had after 9th june 1962 sublet assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to shri baldev raj bindra and sat pal bindra without the companysent in writing of the respondent landlord.
the tenancy in question started on 1st january 1962.
one jagan nath since deceased was the original tenant of the premises in question.
13 the landlord had denied the suggestion that the said jagan nath was in possession of the premises and his sons had been helping him from the very beginning.
the tenant tendered the rent to the landlord by money order for an amount of rs.450 which he refused to accept.
hence this appeal.
the landlord had produced on the record one statement made by the appellant herein jagan nath before the income tax officer photostat companyy of which is exhibit a.w.
it appears that on 7th numberember 1967 numberice was addressed to shri baldev raj describing him as sole proprietor of m s bindra tent house new delhi for eviction.
rani chhabra for the appellants.
the judgement of the companyrt was delivered by sabyasachi mukharji j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgement and order of the high companyrt of delhi dated 29th august 1984.
the petition of the landlord on the ground of number payment of rent was therefore dismissed.
number 40 of 1984.
k. ganguli and e.m.s.
anam for the respondents.
