Sultan Singh,J. - (1.)This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenges the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 15th February, 1975 affirming on appeal the judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 30th July, 1971 passing an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act against the appellants and respondent Nos. 2 to 8.
(2.)Briefly the facts are that on 17th August, 1968 Makhan LaI Jain, predecessor of Sushil Kumar, respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to 'the landlord') filed a petition for eviction of his tenant, Hira Lal Rustogi (predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 to 8), Inder Sain Gupta (appellant No. 1) M/s. Indra Printing Press, (appellant No. 2) alleging that one garage bearing Municipal No. 4711 forming part of No. 21, Daya Nand Road, Daryaganj, Delhi was let to Hira Lal Rustagi in 1945, that in April, 1968 the tenant sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of the premises without his permission and consent in writing to the appellants. The tenant pleaded that the firm Indra Printing Press (Appellant No. 2) consisting of himself and Indar Sain Gupta (appellant No. 1) was inducted as tenant in the suit premises i.e. the garage in 1947 for running a printing press, that he was not tenant in his personal capacity, that rent of the premises had always been paid by and on behalf of the firm appellant No. 2 from the funds of the firm, that the rent receipts were issued in his favour as partner, that the landlord was estopped from raising the plea of sub-letting, that the said firm was dissolved on 22nd April, 1968 and till then the rent had always been paid by the said firm, that he retired from the firm on that date and the assets and liabilities as well as the tenancy rights vested in appellant No. 1, proprietor of appellant No. 2. The appellants in their written statement pleaded that the firm appellant No. 2 had been a tenant since 1947, that Hira Lal Rustagi was never tenant of the premises in question, that he was partner of the said firm since 1947 along with appellant No. I, that the tenancy from the beginning of 1947 was in the name of the firm Indra Printing Press and there was no question of subletting or assigning or parting with the possession, that the rent receipt was issued in the name of Hira Lal Rustagi for and on behalf of the firm Indra Printing Press, that the rent had always been paid by the firm, that it was dissolved on 22nd April) 1968 when Hira Lal Rustagi retired.
(3.)Hira Lal Rustagi, the tenant died on 8th March, 1970, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings before the Additional Controller who byjudgment and order dated 30thJuly, 1971 held that Hira Lal Rustagi alone was tenant in his individual capacity and the appellants never became tenants in the suit premises. The Additional Controller observed that 0m Parkash, R.W. I and Nem Chand, R.W. 2 were procured, tutored and interested witnesses and that the landlord never recognised the appellants as his tenants. On appeal the Rent Control Tribunal confirmed the judgment and order of the Additional Controller. The landlord died during the pendency of the appeal on 27th April, 1973 and his grandson Sushil Kumar (respondent No. 1) was substituted as his heir and legal representative by virtue of a Will dated 15th July, 1970. The appellants have filed this second appeal.