RAMESH KUMAR JAITLEY Vs. SATPAL GROVER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM 2490/2015 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM(M) 120/2015 & CM 2489/2015 (stay) The petitioner was directed to be evicted by the learned ARC on 24th July, 2013 on a petition for eviction filed by the respondents under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act). This order has been affirmed on appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2015 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal.

(2.) IN the eviction petition, the respondents stated that they were the owners/landlord of the tenanted premises/shop at property bearing No. 18/51, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi 110008 on the ground floor wherein the petitioner No.1&2 were inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 450/ - excluding electricity and water charges vide rent note dated 4th January, 1994. It was further stated that petitioner No.1&2 unauthorizedly, illegally and without the written consent, knowledge and permission of the respondents sub -let/assigned and/or parted with the possession of the tenanted premises in favour of petitioner No.3 who is presently using/occupying and was in possession of the premises independent of petitioner No.1&2 or any of their family members.

(3.) IN the written statement, the petitioners stated that they had not sub -let the premises to petitioner No.3 and the premises continued to belong to petitioner No.1&2. It was stated that till 2005 -06 petitioner No.1&2 were themselves running the petitioner No.3 which was a partnership firm but as petitioner No.1&2 were not well and not able to carry on the business so they appointed the staff to manage the same. The staff so appointed takes the keys from their residence for opening the tenanted premises in the morning and returns the same in the evening. It is further stated that the respondents purchased the suit premises for a consideration of Rs. 66,50,000/ - out of which Rs. 30 lakhs were to be paid to the petitioner No.1&2, and that petitioner No.1&2 had agreed to vacate the premises after getting the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs. Since the respondents failed to make the payment, the tenanted premises were not vacated.