SUBHASH CHAND SAINI Vs. VED PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order is dated 27.09.2007 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT); by way of this order the matter had been remanded back to the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) to decide afresh the issue of sub-letting by giving an opportunity to the landlord to re-examine AW1-Rakesh Kumar with right to the tenant to cross-examine the witness and also to lead additional evidence. This order was passed to entitle the tenant to rebut the case sought to be set up by the landlord by way of amendment of the plaint; the amended plaint had been taken on record by the ARCT. Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlords (21 in number) against three respondents. The grounds were raised under Section 14(1) (b) & (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as DRCA). The averments made in the eviction petition are to the effect that the petitioners are the owners/landlords of the shop bearing No. 1446, Ward IV, Dariba Kalan, Delhi. Respondents are the tenants in respect of one shop (depicted in red colour in the site plant filed in the Trial Court). The premises had been let out for running a tailoring shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 18 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 55/- ; the original tenant was Roshal Lal; tenancy was terminated during his life time by a legal notice dated 20.03.1973 served by registered AD on him; tenancy was terminated with effect from 31.05.1973; after the death of Roshan Lal, the respondents have inherited the tenancy rights of Roshal Lal as joint tenants. In August, 1990, the respondents without the consent of the landlord have parted with possession/sub-let/assigned this shop in favour of one Mahipal who has started a halwai shop/sweet house which is without the permission of the petitioners; no licence for running a halwai shop has also been obtained; in spite of legal notice dated 28.10.1990 having been served upon the respondents, the mis-user has not stopped; eviction petition was accordingly filed under the grounds as aforenoted.

(2.) Written statement was filed by the respondents denying these averments. Contention was that earlier two eviction petitions filed by the landlord had also been dismissed; neither the ground of sub-letting nor the ground under Section 14 (1) (c) of the DRCA was made out.

(3.) Oral and documentary evidence was led by the respective parties. Rakesh Kumar appeared as AW1; his deposition was to the effect that Mahipal was in possession of the shop and has been carrying on a halwai business in the said shop. The landlord was examined as AW4. The tenant had appeared in the witness box as RW1 and reiterated the averments made on oath; contention being that the earlier eviction petitions filed by the landlord had been dismissed; suit for possession filed by him against the legal heirs of Roshal Lal had also been dismissed on 25.02.1997. Two other witnesses i.e. RW2 and RW3 had also come into the witness box.