GOVERDHAN LAL SONI Vs. INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Goverdhan Lal Soni (hereinafter to be referred to as the alleged `sub-tenant') seeks to challenge the order of the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 20th November, 2002 thereby allowing an appeal filed by M/s.Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as the `landlord') against the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 16th September, 1999 dismissing an eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground of sub-letting of the suit premises.

(2.) Briefly, the germane facts leading to the present petition are that the abovenamed landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the `Act') with the averments and allegations that the suit premises comprising of an industrial shed measuring 900 sq.ft. and one room measuring 250 sq.ft. situated within ISI compound, 458-466, Friends Colony, G.T.Road, Shahdara, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan was let out to M/s.Metachem Enterprises, a registered partnership firm of Sh.Girdhari Lal, respondent No.2 and Sh.Shiv Kumar, respondent No.3 (referred to as the `tenants') vide a lease agreement dated 1st April, 1986 and the last payable rent was Rs.3,061/- per month besides water and electricity charges. It is alleged that the abovenamed tenants have sub-let or parted with or assigned the possession of the entire tenanted premises in favour of Goverdhan Lal Soni without the written consent of the landlord. Goverdhan Lal Soni had filed a suit bearing No.236/95 claiming himself as the proprietor of M/s.Metachem Enterprises and being in possession of the tenanted premises as lawful occupant thereof. The eviction petition was not contested by Girdhari Lal and Shiv Kumar, the partners of M/s.Metachem Enterprises but was contested by the alleged sub-tenant Goverdhan Lal Soni on his behalf as well as on behalf of M/s.Metachem Enterprises thereby denying the allegations about they being sub-lessee of the suit premises and came forth with a plea that M/s/Metachem Enterprises is his proprietorship concern and he was a direct tenant of the suit premises w.e.f. 2nd September, 1986 and had been continuously paying the rent to the landlord against the receipts issued by them and, therefore, there was no question of any sub-letting of the premises to him by the alleged partnership firm and its partners. Parties lead evidence in support of their respective pleas. The landlord did not produce the original lease agreement dated 1st April, 1986 which was an insufficiently stamped and unregistered document but its copy was brought on record. On a consideration of the evidence and material brought on record, the learned Additional Rent Controller held that the landlord has failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between it and M/s.Metachem Enterprises, the partnership firm of Girdhari Lal and Shiv Kumar and consequently there was no question of sub-letting of the premises by it to Goverdhan Lal Soni and accordingly dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the said appeal upsetting the findings reached by the Controller and passed an eviction order holding that on the basis of the evidence and material brought on record, even in absence of the production of original lease deed dated 1st April, 1986, the landlord has been able to establish that the premises were infact let out to partnership firm M/s.Metachem Enterprises and since Goverdhan Lal Soni admittedly claimed to be in exclusive possession of the suit premises, it was presumed that the premises was sub-let to him by the said firm and accordingly passed an eviction order against the tenants and the sub-tenant.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Girdhar Govind, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr.Gaurav Kejriwal, learned counsel representing respondent No.1-landlord and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.