Admissions and subletting: a non-party affidavit cannot bind the tenant, and inadmissible evidence cannot sustain the finding.

Admissions bind only the party making them, an authorised agent, or a person with a proprietary, pecuniary or derivative interest in the subject matter. An affidavit filed by a non-party to the tenancy could not be treated as binding admission against the tenant, and once that material was excluded there was no reliable evidence of exclusive possession to sustain a finding of subletting or parting with possession under the Delhi Rent Control Act. A finding resting mainly on inadmissible evidence is legally vitiated, and the High Court could re-examine the remaining record and reject oral testimony on proper appraisal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of subletting or parting with possession under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 could be sustained when it rested mainly on an affidavit of a person who was not a party to the tenancy and whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent factual finding.

Analysis: An admission is binding only when made by a party, an authorised agent, or a person having a proprietary, pecuniary, or derivative interest in the subject-matter. A statement made by Avtar Singh in an affidavit before income-tax authorities could not bind Gulzar Singh because Gulzar Singh was not a party to that affidavit and Avtar Singh, on the appellant's own case, had no independent or derivative tenancy interest. Once that material was excluded, there was no reliable evidence establishing exclusive possession by Avtar Singh. A finding founded principally on inadmissible evidence is vitiated in law, and the High Court was entitled to re-examine the remaining evidence and reject the oral testimony on appraisal.

Conclusion: The finding of subletting failed in law and on evidence, and the High Court was correct in restoring the tenant's case.

---