NIRMAL KISHORE JAIN Vs. SUNPACK INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) which has endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 28.03.2003 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord Mirmal Kishore Jain seeking eviction of his tenant M/s Sunpack India on the ground contained in Section 14(1) (a)(b)(c) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. These are two concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below.

(2.) Record shows that the premises in dispute is a suit property bearing No. 1063-64, Bazar Piawalan, Jama Masjid, Delhi which as per the averments contained in the eviction petition is a property comprising of two doors having an height of 16 feet rented out to the tenant at a monthly rent of '300/-; this was vide a written lease deed dated 12.11.1986 (Ex.AW-1/1); the purpose of letting was for dealing in paper, board and allied business only. The contention of the landlord is that the tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent; he was in arrears of rent w.ef. 01.04.1989 which he had failed to tender inspite of demand notice dated 14.03.1994 (Ex. AW-1/4). Further contention is that the property has been sublet/assigned/parted with possession in favour of M/s Ankit Trading Company and Hans Raj Goel without obtained the permission in writing of the landlord; the sub-lessees are carrying out their business in the suit premises for which the tenant is charging a huge amount from them; they have also started manufacturing activity in the unauthorized portion which is in their possession; because of this activity, a lot of vibrations amounting to a nuisance has occurred to the landlord and other residents of the area; inspite of notice dated 14.03.1994 (Ex.AW-1/4) served upon the tenant this activity has not stopped; grounds for eviction under Section 14(1)(b)(c) & (j) were also prayed for.

(3.) Written statement was filed by the tenant disputing all the aforenoted contentions. Contention was that the tenant has paid up to date rent i.e. up to 30.09.2000 which the landlord had accepted without any objection; thereafter also the tenant has been paying rent regularly; ground under Section 14(1)(a) is not made out. Qua the other grounds it was contended that what has been let out to the tenant right from the inception of the tenancy was one shop with two tands which are existing from the inception of tenancy and the landlord is well aware of this; there is no person by the name of Ankit Trading Company which is carrying out any business there; further contention in the written statement is that Hansraj Goel is the Managing Director of the tenant for last several years and is looking after the business of the tenant; no ground of subletting under Section 14(1)(b) is made out. Contention with regard to clause 'c' and 'j' of Section 14(1) is that the premises had in fact been let out for the purpose of paper, board and other allied business; the tenant is using the premises for the same purpose only; the allied business is conversion of paper into consumable sizes which is not a manufacturing activity; no nuisance has been created by the activity of the tenant; grounds under Section 14(1)(c) & (j) are also not made out.