HARI CHAND Vs. RAJENDER NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the DRC Act"), which provision now stands excluded from the Act after the amendment of the Act in 1988, hinges upon the plea that running of business by the deceased appellant in the tenanted shop on the ground floor of property bearing No.97, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the suit property") through his son Surinder Kumar was not an act of subletting. It was pleaded that the suit property was let out to HUF of which the deceased appellant was the Karta and, therefore, the business being run by him along with his son Surinder Kumar would not constitute an act of parting with the possession. It was submitted that the deceased appellant never divested himself of the legal possession of the suit property.

(2.) Both the courts below i.e. the court of the Additional Rent Controller (for short "the ARC") as well as the first appellate court i.e. the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short "the ARCT") have returned a concurrent finding that the suit property was let out individually to the deceased appellant and in view of his own admission that the suit property being now used exclusively by his son Surinder Kumar, it was a case of subletting/parting with the possession without their being any consent obtained by the deceased appellant in writing from the landlord and thus, attracts the mischief of the provisions contained under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act. Consequently, the eviction order passed by the learned ARC against the appellant was justified. The aforesaid finding was further confirmed by the learned ARCT.

(3.) According to the appellant, the order passed by the learned ARC and the judgment rendered by the ARCT are not sustainable in law for the following amongst other reasons:-