ISHWARI DEVI Vs. MADAN LAL CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 24.01.2004 which had reversed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller dated 01.03.2002. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 01.03.2002 had passed an eviction order in favour of the landlord; the Additional Rent Control Tribunal had reversed this finding; petition of the landlord stood dismissed.

(2.) The present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). His contention is that this premises comprising of One room and a verandah bearing No. 28/8, Shakti Nagar, Delhi had been let out in the year 1965 to Jai Kishan Dass, father of the Respondent; it was for the purpose of selling milk and ghee. In 1986, Jai Kishan Dass died leaving behind his legal heirs. Contention is that the Madan Lal Chopra (son of Jai Kishan DAss) had illegally and unauthorizedly sub-let and parted with the possession of the premises to one Ram Lubhaya. This was in the year 1988. In 1990 Ram Lubhaya had parted with the possession of the premises to Gobind Singh Gharwal who was running the business of "Gol Gappe" and "Tikkis". Present petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA was accordingly filed.

(3.) Issues were framed and oral and documentary evidence was led by the respective parties. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the Petitioner. AW-2 was the son in law of the Petitioner; he had proved on record the photograph Ex. AW-2/1 depicting the presence of the alleged Gobind Singh Gharwal was using these premises i.e. premises bearing No. 28/8; he was selling "Gol Gappe" and "Tikkis" from the said shop. Learned Counsel for the landlord has pointed out that the order of ARCT reversing the finding of the ARC is an illegality; contention being that the Petitioner/landlord has in a case of subletting only to show that a stranger has been inducted into the premises by the original tenant; thereupon the onus shifts upon the tenant to show as to how and in what circumstances this stranger was found in the premises; this onus was not discharged by the tenant; ARC had correctly noted these facts; order of the RCT reversing the finding of the ARC suffers from a patent illegality. For this proposition, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court Duli Chand (D) by LRs. v. Jagmender Dass, 1990 RLR 13 as also Hari Ram v. Rukmani Devi, 1996 RLR 522 and Mohd. Kasam v. Bakar Ali,1998 RLR 592 to support this submission. It is pointed out that under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA where the landlord has shown the presence of a person other than that of a tenant; it is for the tenant to show the capacity of the alleged sub-tenant.