ANIL KUMAR KALRA Vs. SAT NARAIN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned is the order dated 03.07.2003 which order was passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) dismissing the review petition filed by the tenant against the order dated 23.05.2003. Vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2003 the ARCT had dismissed the appeal of the tenant upholding the order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 08.05.2003 whereby an eviction order had been passed in favour of the landlord namely Sat Narain Gupta and against the tenant Anil Kumar Kalra under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA).

(2.) RECORD shows that the landlord had filed the present eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA; tenanted shop is premises bearing No. ER-20, Inderpuri, New Delhi; it had been let out to respondent No. 1 (Anil Kumar Kalra) vide rent deed dated 20.03.1985. This tenancy had been created by Bidhi Singh in favour of respondent No. 1; Bidhi Singh was the erstwhile owner of this property; thereafter this property had been purchased by the present petitioners Sat Narain Gupta and Anil Kumar Goel. Eviction petition had been filed on the ground of sub-letting; contention was that respondent No. 1 had sublet these premises to Pradeep Kalra (respondent No. 2), it is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 is the brother of respondent No. 1; contention of the petitioners was that respondent No. 2 was in exclusive and complete possession and control of the premises and he was running a business of tents and decorators under the name and style of ,,Payal Tent and Decorators; this subletting being without the consent of the landlord, petition under Section 14 (1)(b) had been preferred. Further contention was that respondent No. 1 is now running his business either at the Patel Nagar or Narayana Ring Road for the last few years; i.e. he has an independent business.

(3.) THE tenant had examined three witnesses to support his case. THE tenant had himself come into the witness box as RW-1; he had stated that the rent receipts Ex. PW-1/4-A to Ex. PW-/4-C although admittedly signed by his brother Pradeep Kalra but were signed in his capacity as his General Manager; he had admitted that he has a shop at Narayana which was earlier under the tenancy of his father but now under his tenancy; RW-1 had admitted that whatever profits are earned from the tent house business are kept by Pradeep Kalra only; he had admitted that he was an income tax assesseee; he had further admitted that he had a bank account for his Narayana shop and the name of the business of Narayana Shop is ,,Payal Tent House; he had stated that there is a joint account of both the shops i.e. shop at Narayana and shop at Inderpuri as the business is the same; he had also admitted that he was maintaining the balance-sheets of the firm. In his cross-examination, he had admitted that he had not brought the balance-sheet for the years 1995 to 1998 as the same had not been prepared because of low business; balance- sheets for the year 1999-2000 had admittedly been filed; this balance-sheet admittedly pertains to the period after the filing of the eviction petition; this has been noted while drawing a conclusion that the tenant had deliberately chosen neither to file his balance-sheets and nor the income tax returns for the period from 1995 to 1998 which was the period when he had allegedly sublet these premises exclusively to his brother Pradeep Kalra; in these circumstances, the concurrent findings of RCT as also of ARCT had noted that adverse inference on this count has to be drawn against the tenant. RW-2 had produced the record of the Income Tax Department; admittedly income tax returns for the years 1993 to 1999 were not on record as the same had not been filed; RW-3 a witness from the MCD Department had admitted that he had not brought the file of the tenant as he was not asked to do so; the license last renewed from the Department was in the name of ,,Payal Tent and Decorators and not ,,Payal Tent House which was the original name of the business which was being carried out by respondent No. 1; ,,Payal Tent and Decorators was the business allegedly being carried out by respondent No. 2.