SOHAN SINGH Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.7.2003 OF THE RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL, DELHI IN RCA NO.594/99 WHEREBY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER UNDER SECTION 14(1)(B) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WHILE OVER-RULING THE CONTROLLER ON GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 14(1)(A) OF THE ACT. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL UNDER SECTION 14(1)(B) OF THE ACT, THE TENANT HAS COME TO THIS COURT BY WAY OF SAO 2/2003. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE REVERSAL OF THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER'S ORDERS UNDER SECTION 14(1)(A) OF THE ACT, THE LANDLORD HAS COME UP BY WAY OF A SEPARATE SECOND APPEAL.

(2.) THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

(3.) THE TRIBUNAL IN THE JUDGMENT UNDER CHALLENGE NOTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPRECIATING THE QUESTION UNDER SECTION 14(1)(B) OF THE ACT, WHAT WAS NECESSARY WAS TO SEE THE STATUS OF UDHAM SINGH, WHO THE TENANT CLAIMS WAS HIS EMPLOYEE AND THAT THE PREMISES IN QUESTION WAS IN POSSESSION OF UDHAM SINGH BY VIRTUE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE APPRECIATING THE DEPOSITION OF UDHAM SINGH CHOSE NOT TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE SAME SINCE IT WAS NOT CORROBORATED BY SALARY REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE TENANT, IF AT ALL, AS ALSO THE INCOME TAX RETURN, BALANCE- SHEET ETC. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, CONCURRING WITH THE ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER HELD THAT THE PREMISES IN QUESTION WERE AT THE RELEVANT TIME NOT IN LEGAL POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL.