Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.K. Mitter and R.S. Bachawat

JUDGMENT

R.S. Bachawat, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment instituted by a landlord against a tenant. It is common case that the suit is governed by the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (Act No. 38 of 1952) hereinafter referred to as the Act. The material provisions of s. 13(1) of the Act are as following :

"13. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract, no decree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord against any tenant (including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated) :

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied -

. . .

(b) that the tenant without obtaining the consent of the landlord in writing has, after the commencement of this Act, -

(i) sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises; or

(ii) used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let; or

(c) that the tenant without obtaining the consent of the landlord has before the commencement of this Act, -

(i) sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of, the whole or any part of the premises; or

(ii) used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let; or

. . .

(k) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises, or notwithstanding previous notice has used or dealt with the premises in a manner contrary to any condition imposed on the landlord by the Government, or the Delhi Improvement Trust while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situated;"

2. The respondent constructed the building known as the Hotel Imperial, New Delhi, on land leased to him by the Secretary of State for India in Council under a perpetual lease deed dated July 9, 1937. By a deed dated August 18, 1939, he leased to the appellant the hotel premises together with fittings and furniture for a term of 20 years commencing on September 15, 1939. On January 28, 1958, the respondent instituted the present suit alleging that in breach of the express conditions of the lease dated August 18, 1939, the appellant sub-let portions of the premises and made unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises, that on such breaches he was entitled to determine the lease and he did so by notice in writing dated January 6, 1958. He claimed eviction of the appellant on the grounds mentioned in cls. (b), (c) and (k) of the proviso to s. 13(1) of the Act. The appellant filed its written statement on ........