VIJAY SWARUP SINGHAL Vs. PREM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) , J.

(2.) THE impugned judgment is dated 28.09.2007. This was an order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) which has reversed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.03.2007. THE ARC had decreed the eviction petition of the landlord Vijay Swarup Singhal filed by him under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) i.e. on the ground of sub-letting. THE impugned judgment i.e. order of the ARCT had reversed this finding.

(3.) ATTENTION has been drawn to para 5 wherein it was denied that Tota Ram ever worked as a compounder in the clinic or that he was authorized to issue any prescription; this submission is false. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the legal notice which had been issued by the landlord to the tenant on 01.08.2001 wherein the contention was that the premises have been sublet to Tota Ram by the legal representatives of Jage Ram from where Tota Ram is running his business. ATTENTION has been drawn to the reply of the aforenoted legal notice wherein the tenant has denied the ground of sub-letting; in this reply, it has been contended that Tota Ram was working as a compounder for Dr. Jage Ram during his lifetime; vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this reply filed by the tenant to the legal notice is clearly contrary to the averments made by him in his written statement; whereas in the reply to the legal notice he has admitted that Tota Ram was working as compounder of Jage Ram yet in the written statement he has denied this factum. Submission of the petitioner/landlord being that ground of sub- letting has clearly been made out and the ARC had returned a correct fact finding which could not have been interfered with by the ARCT who has committed a fallibility.