DHARAMVIR KATARIA THROUGH LRS Vs. SHYAM SUNDER TALWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 02.07.2007 which has reversed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 16.11.2005. Vide order dated 16.11.2005, the petition filed by the landlord namely Dharamvir Kataria (Dead) through his legal representatives seeking eviction of his tenant Shyam Sunder Talwar & Others on the grounds under Section 14 (1)(a)(b) & (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed on the ground under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA; on other grounds, the eviction petition had been dismissed. The RCT had however reversed the finding of the ARC and had dismissed the eviction petition of the landlord on the ground under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA as well.

(2.) RECORD shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by the landlord under Section 14 (1)(a)(b) & (c) of the DRCA; premises which had been let out to Shiv Narain is suit property bearing Municipal No. 1978, ground floor, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The ground under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA i.e. the ground of subletting had found favour with the ARC and he had decreed the eviction petition. This was after examination of oral and documentary evidence led by the respective parties which included one witness on behalf of the landlord and correspondingly one witness on behalf of the tenant.

(3.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, the application filed by the tenant seeking permission to lead additional evidence had been permitted. Affidavit dated 14.05.2003 Ex. ,,X had been filed by Rajinder Talwar, the son of the original tenant Shiv Narain; he had deposed that respondent no.3 had been incorporated in the year 1993 having two directors namely their father Shiv Narain and Shyam Sunder Talwar his elder brother; after the death of Shiv Narain; Rajinder Talwar and Neeraj Talwar (the son of Shyam Sunder Talwar) were also included as directors; they are registered at the tenanted shop but the business of the company is being carried out from 1981-84, Chapper Walan, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and the company (respondent No. 3) has in fact never used the suit premises; income tax returns, sales tax returns, license of respondent No. 3, invoices, telephone and electricity bills are also at the address at Chapper Walan, Karol Bagh. In the deposition of RW-1 the name of another company namely M/s Talwar Jewellers (P) Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the ,,Company) had also surfaced as also being registered at the address of the tenanted premises. The RCT in this scenario had directed the tenant to file shareholding pattern of respondent no.3 (M/s Chander Bhan Shiv Narain Jeweller Private Ltd.) as also the shareholding pattern of the other company ( i.e. Talwar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.) as on 31.3.2000. The list of directors and shareholding pattern of two companies i.e. respondent no.3 and of the Company evidenced that the two companies were in fact the family companies of Shiv Narain who was the original tenant. This evidence filed before the RCT of the shareholding of the two companies had in fact not been rebutted by the landlord.