ABHILASH JAIN Vs. SURENDER KUMAR KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned order is dated 20.4.2006. Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) had endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 13.5.2003 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Surender Kumar Kalra under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been disposed of; petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA had been decreed and qua the provisions under Section 14(1)(a) DRCA this being a case of first default benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRCA had been granted to the tenant. This judgment is the subject of the present petitioner. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord against his two tenants Abhilash Jain and Manoj Jain; ground under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the DRCA had been pleaded. This Court in this petition is concerned with the grounds only under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA; disputed premises have been described as H-7A, Model Town, Delhi. Contention was that the premises had been sublet by the original tenant in favour of M/s Auto Den and S.K. Jain & Company comprising of Sunil Kumar Jain and Pankaj Jain; petitioner is the owner of the said premises; he has not granted any permission to the tenant to sublet these premises either in writing or orally. Eviction petition under the aforenoted provision was accordingly filed.

(2.) Written statement was filed. It was denied that the premises had been sublet, assigned or parted with possession in favour of M/s Auto Den comprising of Sunil Kumar Jain and Pankaj Jain; contention was that M/s Auto Den is the trade mark of Abhilash and Manoj Jain who are both tenants and this firm does not exist; qua M/s S.K. Jain & Company it was stated that this is a firm comprising of Sunil Kumar jain, Pankaj Jain and Kanta Jain in respect of the adjoining building H-7, Model Town, Delhi in their own independent right; eviction petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Oral and documentary evidence was led. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the landlord; AW-1 was the landlord Surender Kumar Kalra. He had reiterated the averments made in the eviction petition and had deposed that the premises had been sublet by the original tenant namely Abhilash Jain and Manoj Jain to M/s Auto Den and M/s S.K. Jain and Company. In his cross-examination he has stated that sign board of M/s Auto Den had been displayed over the suit premises and Sunil Kumar and Pankaj Jain are in possession thereof. He had admitted that he had no documentary evidence showing that M/s Auto Den is doing activity from the aforenoted premises. Relevant would be to state that no suggestion has been given to this witness that M/s Auto Den is the trade name of Abhilash Jain and Manoj Jain. The second witness of the landlord was Charanjeet Singh; he was a neighbour. His deposition is largely to the same effect as that of PW-1. In his cross-examination he admitted that S.K. Jain and Pankaj Jain have their own company which is being run from H-7, Model Town which is adjoining to the suit premises; he has admitted that he has seen the business of M/s Auto Den which is dealing in car seat cover which they manufacture and sell and they are using the premises H-8 as godown also and he has seen the sign board of M/s Auto Den outside H-7A, Model Town i.e. the suit premises. Per contra the evidence adduced by the tenant included S.K. Jain who was the first witness. He had admitted that he is a partner of M/s S.K. Jain & Co and apart from him Sanjay Jain and Santosh Jain were the partners; he was never a partner in the M/s S.K. Jain Trade Corporation and he does not know as to who is the partner of M/s S.K. Jain Trade Corporation. He admitted that he had opened a saving account on 21.1.1997 being account No.3229 where his address is shown as that of disputed premises; he had admitted that water bills of the disputed premises has been received in the name of M/s S.K. Jain Trade Corporation. Vehement submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant on this score is that M/s S.K. Jain Sales Corporation is an entity distinct from M/s S.K. Jain & Company; even presuming that the water bills were received in the name of M/s S.K. Jain Sales Corporation in the suit premises it would not establish the averment of the landlord that M/s S.K. Jain & Company was functioning from the demised premises. RW-4 and RW-5 were Abhilash Jain and Manoj Jain the original tenants. In her cross-examination RW-4 has stated that a partnership had been entered into between herself, Manoj Jain and Surinder Kumar Jain on 01.10.1996; she does not know about investment and the name of the said firm. In fact on each and every question on the partnership dated 01.10.1996 put to the witness she was evasive she had no comments. Ex.RW-4/1 was the aforenoted partnership deed dated 01.10.1996 which was dissolved on 31.3.2000 vide document Ex.RW-4/2 and a new partnership was created on 01.4.2000 (Ex. RW-4/3). The RCT had endorsed the finding of the ARC on the aforenoted document and had returned categorical fact finding noting that the aforenoted documents Exs.RW-4/1, RW-4/2 and RW-4/3 are forged. Reasons being as follows: