MUKESH SETH Vs. A B LAL AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed an order dated 7th February, 2008 passed by learned ARCT, Delhi whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondents.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present petition are that the respondents herein filed an eviction petition against M/s Texind Corporation P. Ltd (as respondent no.1 and against respondents no.2 and 3 before the ARCT), inter alia on the ground that the premises was let out to respondent no.1, having its registered office at Bombay for the purpose of maintaining a residence-cum-personal office of the employee of respondent no.1 but respondent no.3 had parted with possession of the premises to respondent no.2 M/s Vrishti Overseas P. Ltd. and respondent no. 3 Shri Mukesh Seth. It was contended that there was fall in business of respondent no.1 and all its employees gradually left and by the year 2000 its operation in Delhi stopped. Respondent no.3 earlier working as Branch Manager of respondent no.1 occupied the premises as branch manager of respondent no.1. After closure of the business of respondent no.1, he ceased to be employee of respondent no.1 and he along with his family members formed a company under the name and style of M/s Vrishti Overseas P. Ltd. (respondent no.2 before the trial court) with its registered office at the suit premises and this got revealed to the landlord from the record of Registrar of Companies. Respondent no.1 secretly sublet/ assigned or otherwise parted with possession of whole or part of the premises in favour of respondents no.2 and 3 without written consent of the landlord.

(3.) A common written statement was filed to the eviction petition filed by the landlord. This was signed by respondent no.3 Shri Mukesh Seth as Authorized Representative of respondents no.1 and 2 and verified by Shri Mukesh Seth as authorized representative of respondents no.1 and 2. The written statement was not accompanied by authority letter or resolution of respondent no.1 or power of attorney of respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.3 showing that respondent no.1 had appointed respondent no.3 as its attorney to contest the case. During trial, respondent no.3 examined himself as the sole witness. None appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 to contest the petition. No evidence was led by respondent no.1 about its business or roll of employees or to counter any of the allegations made by the landlord. It was respondent no.3, the petitioner no.1 herein who contested the petition. The landlord in h is testimony categorically stated that the business of respondent no.1 had closed down due to continuous losses and respondent no.3, earlier working as Branch Manager ceased to be an employee of respondent no.1 and he along with his family members constituted a company in the name and style of respondent no.2 at the suit premises and the possession of the premises was parted with in favour of respondents no.2 and 3. Respondent no.3 was the director/managing director of respondent no.2. This parting with possession by respondent no.1 was done without consent of the petitioner herein/landlord. It was also stated that respondent no.3 had constructed his own house in Gurgaon which he had let out on monthly rental of Rs.70,000/- per month instead of vacating the suit premises.