BHAWNA MANCHANDANI Vs. SWARAN DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short ( the 'Act') is directed against order dated 19.10.2000 passed by Additional Rent Control Tribunal whereby an eviction order under section 14(1) (b) of the Act was passed, reversing the order dated 25.5.99 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissing the petition.

(2.) Briefly narrated, facts leading to the appeal are that the landlady respondent herein filed an eviction petition under section 14(1) (b) of the Act on 20.7.87. It was alleged in the eviction petition that the premises in question i.e Flat No. 103, Vaikunth, 82-83, Nehru Place, New Delhi was let out to appellant herein vide agreement dated 18.3.81. The appellant started the business in the name and style of Neelam Computer Data Services as sole proprietor. It was alleged that the appellant had sublet , assigned and /or parted with possession to one Mrs. Renu Manchandani, proprietor Neelam Computer Consultancy as its sole proprietor. Landlady came to know about the alleged subletting in June 1987 when Mohan Manchandani, husband of the appellant brought two cheques, one for Rs. 577/- and other for Rs. 196.50/- signed by Ms. Renu aforesaid. In the written statement appellant denied the alleged subletting to Renu Manchandani. Her case was that premises in question was in continuous possession of herself and her husband and they were joint tenants, in exclusive control and possession of the premises but the name of her husband did not figure in the rent agreement because he was in government service at that time so he could not have carried on any business in his name. Mr. Mohan Manchandani took voluntary retirement from the service in July 1987 and thereafter devoted himself fully to the business being run as partner with her and in this regard regular partnership deed was executed in July 1987. It was further pleaded that the computer business being run in the suit premises in the name and style of Neelam Computer Data Services was primarily the venture of her husband as she herself had no know how of the computer business. In para (I) and of the (J) of additional pleas in the written statement, the appellant had pleaded that all the employees who kept on working and are still working in premises in suit, were employed by Mohan Manchandani and the entire control and possession of the business as also that of the premises had throughout been of Mohan Manchandani besides herself. It may be pointed out here that this written statement was fled on 22.11.88, On that very day appellant and her husband filed a joint petition for divorce (first motion) along with their affidavits setting out temperamental incompatibility as the ground. Third document i.e power of attorney dated 22.11.88 was also executed by the appellant in favour of her husband. Ultimately a decree for divorce on the basis of mutual consent was passed by the learned Additional District Judge in June 1989. The timing of the filing of the written statement coincide with the filing of first motion of divorce by mutual consent. This obviously means that by that time the parties had settled terms of separation. Appellant Bhawna Manchandani appeared in the Court on 17.9.92 and on being asked by the Court, she stated that power of attorney which she executed in favour of her husband is still valid.

(3.) During the pendency of the petition, the respondent/ landlady filed an application under O. 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 11.9.95 seeking permission to introduce some subsequent events which came to her notice. By the proposed amendments, the landlady wanted to plead that the appellant tenant had already divorced her husband Mohan Manchandani vide decree dated 3.6.89 and thereafter appellant has shifted to Dubai. Respondent landlady wanted to plead that as part of divorce settlement, the appellant had left the suit premises under the control of her ex-husband to carry on his business in the premises and thereafter the appellant herein has no concern whatsoever with the suit premises or the business being run therein and this according to the landlady, amounted to subletting, assignment or parting with possession in favour of Mohan Manchandani. However, learned ARC rejected this application vide order dated 28.11.95 being of the view that this would amount to introducing a new cause of action. After considering material on record, learned ARC came to the conclusion that the landlady has failed to prove subletting, assignment or parting with possession in faouvr of Renu Manchandani. Accordingly, he dismissed the eviction petition vide order dated 25.9.99. Learned ARC repelled the appellant's plea of her ex-husband Mohan Manchandani being a joint tenant in the suit premises.