TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (10) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nath Babu for the Appellant. M .L. Bhargava and Randbit Jain for the Respondent JUDGEMENT The appellant landlord had filed an application under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') for ejectment of the respondents. All the three courts concurrently found that Gulzar Singh was the sole tenant. The Rent Controller and the Tribunal found that he sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....interfere with the concurrent finding of fact. He placed reliance on Sec. 18 of the Evidence Act and said that in an affidavit filed by Avtar singh before Income-Tax Authorities he claimed exclusive possession as a tenant and that, therefore, the admission made by him would be binding on Gulzar Singh. The Addl. Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal relying upon this admission of Avtar Sing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Statements made by (1) persons whom have any proprietary or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and who make the statement in their character of persons so interested, or (2) persons from whom the parties to the suit have derived their interest in the subject matter of the suit, are admissions, if they are made during the continuance of the interest of the person....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh cannot claim to have any pecuniary interest or any joint interest alongwith Gulzar Singh in the demised premises. Once it is found that Gulzar Singh alone is the tenant, as admittedly pleaded by the appellant, Avtar Singh cannot claim to have any pecuniary or derivative interest in the demised premises. He is not an agent of Gulzar Singh. Under those circumstances, as rightly found by the High ....