J. D. KAPOOR, J ( 1 ) FEELING aggrieved of the order dated 19. 11. 2002 whereby first appeal of the petitioner against eviction order dated 28. 5. 2002 was dismissed, petitioner has preferred this petition. Facts are like this. ( 2 ) ONE Kesar Das Aneja was inducted as a tenant in the premises by way of written registered lease deed. One of the terms of lease deed in the form of clause 6 authorised him to transfer his tenancy rights in favour of a third person with the stipulation that whenever he would transfer the tenancy rights in favour of some third party, said third party shall be deemed as a tenant on the terms and conditions as were applicable in respect of Kesar Das Aneja. Taking advantage of the clause, Kesar Das Arneja transferred the tenancy rights in favour of his son the petitioner Krishan Lal Arneja by way of written lease deed. It is alleged that Krishan Lal Arneja sublet the premises to respondents 5 to 14 which gave rise to instant eviction petition against him. ( 3 ) MERELY because the respondent referred Krishan Lal Arneja as a sub-tenant who had derived tenancy rights from his father by virtue of aforesaid clause of lease deed executed in favour of his father, the petitioner Krishan Lal Arneja is seeking refuge that without impleading the tenants, the respondent could not have sought eviction on the ground of sub-tenancy little realising that the lease deed executed between the respondent and petitioner s father Kesar Das Arneja had though conferred the status of a tenant but he was legally couched as sub-tenant. Thus to say that the petition was not maintainable because of non-impleadment of actual tenants who according to the Mr. Harish Kumar Mehra, learned counsel for petitioner are the other legal heirs of Kesar Das Arneja is wholly untenable and without any substance as the moment Kesar Das Arneja transferred the tenancy rights in favour of Krishan Lal Arneja by virtue of clause 6 of the lease deed every other legal heir after his death ceased to have any right to inherit the tenancy as the petitioner Krishan Lal Arneja had become the independent tenant by virtue of transfer of tenancy rights by Kesar Das Arneja in his favour. ( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. ( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Mehra that by virtue of clause 6 of the lease deed executed between the father of the petitioner and the landlord, the petitioner had transferred the tenancy rights in favour of respondents 5 to 14 who had been arraigned as sub tenants holds water like a sieve as clause 6 of the lease deed conferred the right of transferring the tenancy only on Kesar Dass Arneja and non else. Had it not been so, clause 6 would have no meaning as every sub-tenant would continue sub-letting the premises in a chain and therefore would defeat the very ground of eviction contemplated under Section 41 (1) (b) i. e. , parting with possession or subleting, of Delhi Rent Control Act. This appears to be very strange reasoning and is therefore difficult to accept. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that respondents 5 to 14 are occupying the premises in question. Again there are concurrent findings of facts in favour of respondents and against the petitioner that the petitioner Krishan Lal has sublet the premises to respondents 5 to 14 are by the trial court and affirmed by first appellate court, I perceive no reason to disturb with that finding of fact. ( 6 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, I find the petitioner on sticky wicket as far as legal proposition raised by him is concerned coupled with the findings of two courts that the petitioner has sub-let the premises to respondents 5 to 14. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. ( 7 ) PETITION is disposed of.