NARAIN SINGH Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 19th January 2007 passed by learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) whereby an appeal of the petitioner against the order of Additional Rent Controller (ARC) was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the landlord (respondent Smt. Shanti Devi (since deceased) filed a suit for eviction against Narain Singh (since deceased) and Kailash Chand (since deceased) who were tenants in the suit premises bearing number 3399, Desh Bandu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on account of subletting of the suit premises under Section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC). It was alleged that the tenancy qua these two persons was created in June, 1996, however, the tenants sublet and parted with possession of the suit premises without written consent of the landlord to one Shri Ramesh Chand and the subtenant was not in legal occupation of the suit premises for last 4/5 years. This eviction petition was filed on 2nd April, 1990. The tenant in the written statement initially took the stand that there was no subletting of tenancy and only Shri Kailash Chand and Shri Narain Singh were the tenants and the premises had not been sublet, however, the occupation of the suit premises by Shri Ramesh Chand was not denied. The written statement simply denied the averments but admitted the possession of Shri Ramesh Chand in the suit premises. No documents were filed along with the written statement either of any partnership and no plea of partnership with Shri Ramesh Chand was taken. However, in 1992, the written statement was amended and in the amended written statement, a plea was taken that Shri Ramesh Chand, Shri Kailash Chand and Shri Narain Singh were all real brothers and the original business was being carried out in the suit premises in the name of M/s Ajanta Traders. Later on, the name of partnership firm was changed to M/s Benson Shoe Company. This firm was having bank account and had also taken loan from Corporation Bank which was not paid and a decree was passed against the said partnership firm. A dissolution deed showing dissolution of the partnership executed between Shri Ramesh Chand, Shri Narain Singh and Shri Kailash Chand was filed and a copy of new partnership deed allegedly executed between Shri Ramesh Chand and Shri Narain Singh was filed alleging therein that M/s Benson Shoe Company was a partnership firm and Shri Ramesh Chand was running the partnership business. He was not a subtenant. Both the parties led evidence. The landlord led evidence showing that Shri Ramesh Chand was in exclusive possession of the suit premises who was doing business alone and his other brother was having separate business. The partnership sought to be relied upon by the tenant was a sham document. A photocopy placed before the trial court initially did not tally with the original produced later on. The stamp papers on which the original partnership deed was allegedly drawn, did not bear the stamp of stamp vendor from whom the stamp papers were purchased. Evidence was also produced that Shri Narain Singh was having an independent and separate showroom in Goa. Marriage of his daughter had taken place in Goa. His firm was registered with Sales Tax authorities, Panaji, Goa as sole proprietorship firm and he had filed a declaration to this effect before the sales tax authorities.

(3.) The learned ARC considered the entire evidence produced by both the parties and considered that Shri Ramesh Chand had been shown proprietor of M/s Benson Shoe Company in the Sales Tax Department and in sales tax returns filed from the suit premises and the conduct of entire business was being done by Shri Ramesh Chand alone. No sharing of profits or loss of the partnership firm was proved. The learned ARC concluded that it was a case of sub-tenancy and not a case of partnership firm.