NIRANJAN LAL KANODIA Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 25th September 1981 whereby an eviction order was passed against the appellant under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The brief facts are that the respondent filed an eviction petition against the appellant herein alleging that the appellant tenant had subjct assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenancy premises and, therefore, was liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Clause (b) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. The respondent landlord claims to have purchased the property in suit on 16th December 1968 through a duly registered sale deed. The appellant is an old tenant in a shop in the property bearing No.3116,Gali Chapa Khana Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. In the eviction petition itself the landlord stated that the appellant was an old tenant. According to the appellant he was a tenant with respect to the shop in question since the year 1944. Unauthorised sub-tenants were alleged to be M/s Kanodia Hosiery Mills, Kanodia Company, Modern Straw Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. and S.D. Company. According to the landlord a notice dated 9th March 1969 was duly served on the tenant terminating the tenancy. A further notice dated 16th March 1970 was also served on the tenant. The landlord had also obtained the requisite permission undersection 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement' & Clearance) Act, 1956.

(3.) In the written statement the case of the tenant was that there was no relationship of tenant and landlord between the parlies. The tenant had no knowledge of the purchase of premises in suit by the landlord who instituted the eviction petition. The allegation regarding sub-letting, assigning or parting with possession etc. was vehemently denied. The case of the tenant was that he was in occupation of the tenancy premises since the year 1944. He was the sole tenant of the premises in his individual capacity. He was sole proprietor of M/s Kanodia Hosiery Mills and Kanodia Company. Regarding Modern Straw Board Mills Pvt. Ltd. it was stated that the tenant Niranjan Lal Kanodia was himself the Chairman and Director of the said company and, therefore, the company was his own concern. As regards S.D. Company it. was slated that this firm was a partnership firm consisting of his wife and his son as partners. The said firm was commission agent for the goods manufactured by Kanodia Hosiery Mills. M/s Kanodia Hosiery Mills was owned by Kanodia Company. Kanodia Company was the sole proprietorship of Niranjan Lal Kanodia. The rent of the premises was paid by Kanodia Company. Therefore, according to tenant it could not be said to be a case of sub-letting, assigning or parting with possession of the tenancy premises.