DULI CHAND Vs. JAGMENDER DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant is the appellant. The respondent- landlord filed a petition under S. l4 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an order of eviction of the appellant-tenant for a shop bearing No. 361 (old No. 25-A) Azadpur, G. T. Road, Delhi, on the ground that the tenant-Duli Chand has sub-let or parted with the possession of the said shop after 9/06/1952 to M/s Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan illegally and without the written consent of the landlord. The main contention of the tenant was that there was no sub-letting or parting with the possession of the shop, that Hira Lal was a relative of the tenant who died some time prior to 1958, that Sri Bhagwan is the son of the tenant, and that the name of the business was given as M/s Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan in memory of the deceased relative Hira Lal. He further pleaded that the possession of the shop is with the tenant. Some other defences like the respondent-petitioner was not a landlord, that he had no locus standi to file the petition for eviction, and that the notice of termination of tenancy was not valid, were taken in the written statement and they were overruled and do not survive for consideration in this appeal. On the main contention, the tenant has taken upthe defence that Sri Bhagwan is the son of the respondent and the name of the business M/s Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan is given only in memory of the deceased relative Hira Lal. A reply statement was filed by the landlord to the effect that though Sri Bhagwan was the natural son of the tenant Duli Chand, he had been given in adoption to Hira Lal, that on such adoption Sri Bhagwan had gone out of the family of the respondent and that it was a clear case of sub-letting or parting with the possession of the shop.

(2.) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of subletting did not arise but the case was considered on the dispute whether the tenant had parted with possession of the shop. The tenant never pleaded that he had obtained any written consent from the landlord for parting with possession. The only question, therefore, for consideration in this case is as to whether the tenant had parted with possession of the whole or part of the tenanted premises. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord had not proved parting with possession of the tenanted shop by the tenant. On appeal by the landlord the Rent Control tribunal held that the tenant had parted with the legal possession of the tenanted premises and in that view ordered the eviction of the tenant under S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act. The second appeal filed by the tenant to the High court was dismissed confirming the finding of the Rent Control tribunal that the tenant had parted with possession of the tenanted shop.

(3.) S. 14 (1) (b) of the Act provides that the Rent Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on the ground: