SHYAM KAK Vs. J P GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -On 10-2.1977 the 21-A Janpath, New Delhi office of the Arya Offshore Service (P) Ltd., Bombay, wrote to Shri J.P. Gupte, one of the owners of premises S-56, Panchshila Park, New Delhi, enclosing a cheque of Rs. 2700.00 as one month's advance rent. On 28-2-1977 a lease agreement was executed registered between the said Shri J.P. Gupta and his wife Smt. Sita Gupta, as lessors, and the Arya Offshore Service (P) Ltd., through their Chief Executive Shri S.K. Kak, as lessee, in respect of the aforesaid premises. The tenancy was granted for a period of three years commencing on 1-3-1977 at the rent of Rs. 2700.00 p.m. The rent was payable quarterly.

(2.) On 6-2-1982, the lessors filed an eviction petition under Section l4(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) against theArya Offshore Service for non-payment of rent. In this petition, they also stated that the said Arya Offshore Service has assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in favour of the premises in favour of the said Shri Kak without their written consent. This showed that they knew that the premises were in his occupation. They. further stated that the petitioner Gupta was due to retire from service on 31-1-1982 and the couple intended to reside in Delhi in their own house and reserved liberty to institute separate proceedings on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under Section 14( I ) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Act.

(3.) In this petition Shri Kak made an application on 22-4-1982 under Order I Rule 10, G.P.G. that it was not the Arya Offshore but it was he who was the tenant in the aforesaid premises. He explained how. He said that he joined the service of J.M. Baxi & Co, 21-A, Janpath, New Delhi, on 1-1-1977. Under the contract of his service, he was entitled to residential accommodation. His employers asked him to rent a house on his own for which he would be compensated by them. He then rented the aforesaid premises. Inorder to facilitate payment of the rent, he was appointed in 24-2-1977 as the general attorney of the Arya Offshore and was told that the amount of rent shall be sent from Bombay into the Bank account of the said company, which would be opened for the said purpose and he shall be authorised to operate that account. His employers assured him that the said arrangement was purely on account of the internal financial management between the two concerns and had nothing to do with the tenancy of the applicant. The possession of the premises were handed over to him on 28-2-1977, and on the same day he signed the lease deed in the name of the said company. This applicatn was opposed by the landlords and still remains to be decided.