HARI NARAIN Vs. BELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgmentof the Rent Control Tribunal dated 30/03/1990, by which he had allowed the appeal of the landlady and had set aside the order of the AdditionalRent Controller dated 1/02/1988, by which the eviction petitionbrought on the ground of eviction covered by Clause (b) of. proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed andthe Rent Control Tribunal has allowed the eviction petition and passed theeviction order on the said ground leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(2.) The case set up by the landlady, in brief, is that the shop locatedin premises No. C/30-A, Model Town, Delhi, was let out to Hari Narain buthe has, about ten years earlier, sublet, assigned and parted with possession ofthe said shop in favour of his real brother Jagdish Narain without obtainingany written consent of the landlady. The two brothers filed a joint writtenstatement and pleaded that there has been no subletting or assigning orparting with possession of the demised premises by the tenant in favour ofhis brother and as a matter of act, both brothers have a partnership firmunder the name and style of M/s. Lakshmi Store which is functioning in theshop and the partnership deed was executed on 4/10/1965 and both ofthem are carrying on business in the said shop as partners and they haveshare in profit and loss equally. They also pleaded that the partnership firmis also assessed to income-tax.

(3.) In support of the ground of eviction the landlady appeared in thewitness box and deposed that the tenant Hari Narain had parted with possession of the shop in favour of his brother Jagdish Narain about 10-12 yearsago and it is only Jagdish Narain and his two sons, namely, Titu andMukesh, who are running the business in the shop. She produced a chitEx. A2 given by Hari Narain wherein he had mentioned his address as HariNarain Raj Kumar, 3679, Narang Colony, Tri Nagar and she stated thatHari Narain is residing and having his shop at that address. She deniedthat both the brothers are carrying on the business in the shop in question.It is admitted fact that the landlady is residing on the first floor of the sameproperty but she had not given any explanation as to why she has waited forten years for filing the eviction petition. The landlady herself had producedin cross-examination of Jagdish Narain, the alleged sub-tenant, the counterfoils of the rent receipts bearing signatures of Jagdish Narain the photocopiesof the same proved on the record are Ex. R2 which are of the period 1969 to1976. PW2 another tenant of the landlady in the same building deposed inexamination-in-chief that it was Jagdish Narain only who is in possession ofthe shop in question. This witness, however, in cross-examination could notsay whether both the brothers are running the shop together or not. However, he admitted that Hari Narain also sometimes comes and sits at the shopand even Hari Narain's son also sometimes comes to the shop.