SURINDER BALA Vs. SATPAL CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 27th May 1980 the facts of the case in brief are as follows: A petition was filed by the respondent-landlord herein for eviction of the appellant from premises bearing No. S-360 Greater Kailash, Part I, New Delhi on the ground of sub-letting under Section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. It was alleged in the petition that the appellant had sublet the premises to one Shri Madan Lal, i.e., respondent No. 2 herein. The respondent No. I made the following averments in paragraph 18(a) of the petition and claimed the following relief:

(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that for proving subletting it is necessary to show that the tenant had divested himself not only of the physical possession of the premises but also of the right of possession. Learned counsel submitted that from the evidence it is clear that the appellant continued to be in possession all through. The witnesses produced by respondent no. I particularly, the evidence regarding Ration Card and FIR did not prove the presence of respondent no. 2 in the premises in question. Great emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the appellant on the evidence of respondent no. I himself to show that he took a contradictory stand in his evidence. Counsel submitted that FIR and the register maintained by the Ration Shop Owner did not have any evidentiary value as to residence. Counsel submitted that the ration was drawn by respondent no. 2 only for two months, i.e. June to August 1973 and thereafter it was cancelled. The petition for eviction was filed in September 1973 which showed that the entry in the Register of the Ration Shop Owner was manipulated. Respondent No. I did not prove the ration card, but only proved the Register of the Shopkeeper and that too, not through a Rationing Inspector, but only by the shop owner. Learned counsel further submitted that FIR was allegedly lodged .on 15th April 1973 by Madan Lal himself. The constable who wrote the report was not produced. Counsel submitted that respondents 1 and 2 are in collusion with each other. Collusion is evident from the statement of the landlord, respondent no. I himself, who had stated that the alleged sub-tenant met him and be also knew his wife and children. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent no. I failed to file the replication, to the written statement filed by respondent No. 2 and as such had indirectly admitted that Madan Lal was the - husband of the Ayha of the appellant. Counsel further submitted that the premises in question consist of two rooms and a varandah etc. The appellant is a single lady with four daughters. Thus, it was highly improbable that she would sublet one room from the small accommodation to any third party, particularly, when two of her daughters were at a very senstive age. Counsel submitted that the whole evidence led by the respondent is unbelievable and the findings of both the courts below are perverse.

(3.) On the other band, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in a second appeal and since there are concurrent findings of fact interference by this court is not called for.