MUNSHI LAL Vs. SUMITRA DEVI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned is the order dated 05.7.2000 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) reversing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) which had decreed the petition of the landlord i.e. Anand Saroop filed under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the DRCA"). The impugned judgment had reversed this finding noting that a ground of subletting under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the DRCA has not been made out.

(2.) Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord under Ss. 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the DRCA. The case of the petitioner was that a shop on the ground floor of property bearing no.95, Main Bazar, Najafgarh, Delhi which had been let out to the original tenant Hakim Rai and which had since been sublet by him in favour of his son -in -law Raj Kumar; Hakim Rai had divested himself completely from the suit property. Case under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the DRCA is made out; relief had accordingly been sought under the said provision; claim for eviction from the tenanted premises under Sec. 14(1)(a) had also been prayed for.

(3.) The defence set up by Hakim Rai (tenant) was that he was old, aged, ailing and had lost his eyesight. In the last part of the year 1983 he had requested his son -in -law to assist him in his business; his daughter and son -in -law had got married in 1983 and on his asking had come to Najafgarh to assist him in his business which he was doing from the aforenoted premises. A partnership deed dated 20.11.1983 (Ex.AW -3/13) has been executed between the father -in -law, Hakim Rai and his son -in -law, Raj Kumar to the aforenoted effect wherein the parties had agreed that the business under the said partnership would be conducted from the suit premises. These facts are not in dispute; contention of the landlord, however, is that this partnership deed was a fake and forged document and had been created only as a sham defence to the present eviction petition under Sec. 14(1)(b) of the DRCA; further contention of the landlord being that the ARC had correctly appreciated the covenants attached to this document and drawn a correct fact finding that this document is forged and fabricated as paras no.4 and 5 of the partnership deed (Ex.AW -3/13) had stated that the parties would maintain accounts and books of the company which was admittedly not being carried out by the parties and this fact had been admitted by the widow of the tenant namely Sumitra Devi who has been examined as RW -1. In this background the eviction petition having been decreed in favour of the landlord by the ARC was the correct appreciation of the evidence and the impugned order by the RCT dismissing the eviction petition thus calls for an interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner to support his case has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Ms. Celina Coelho Pereira & Ors. Vs. Ulhas Mahbaleshwar Kholkar & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 7258/2009 decided on 30.10.2009 as also another judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2005) 1 SCCC 31 Joginder Singh Sodhi Vs. Amar Kaur; contention being that on similar facts where defence of a partnership deed had been set up; the ARC had examined its covenants and had correctly drawn a conclusion that this document is a sham document; interference by the High Court was uncalled for. Submission of the petitioner being that an eviction petition filed under the ground of subletting of the premises by the tenant to his son -in -law and where the landlord has prima facie shown that the property is no longer in exclusive possession of the tenant which has been let out for a valuable consideration it will then be for the tenant to rebut this contention; no such rebuttal evidence has been advanced by the tenant. Impugned order is thus liable to be set aside.