CUREWELL INDIA LIMITED Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal against the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated October 28,1989 thereby the appellant-tenant's appeal against the judgment and order of the Rent Controller, Delhi dated January 8,1986 was dismissed. The facts leading to this appeal are as under:

(2.) Property No.72, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi was owned by late Sahib Singh, predecessor in interest of respondent. On November 21, 1969, he let out the same to the appellant at a monthly rental of Rs.2300.00 . On March 23,1983 respondents filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against the appellant on the ground of subletting of the premises by the latter without specific permission of the landlord in writing. It was alleged in the petition filed before the Rent Controller, that the appellant had sublet, assigned or parted with possession of the demised premises to S.K.Ajwani/ D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd. without specific permission in writing of the landlord. It was further alleged that the premises were occupied by S.K.Ajwani/D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd.illegally and unauthorisedly; that the premises were let out to the appellant by means of an agreement in writing; that none was residing in the demised premises and that the ground floor was lying vacant while the first floor was under the unauthorised ooccupation of Shri S.K.Ajwani/D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd. In response the appellant by its written statement filed on November 1, 1983 stated inter alia, that the landlord had agreed to the tenancy of the appellant; that the lease deed provided that the premises shall be used jointly by the appellant as well as M/s.D.Kumar Consulting Engineers,. Pvt.Ltd; that the appellant was also authorised to sublet the premises to any of its sister concerns or associates; that the appellant was in possession of the demised premises with M/s.D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd. and both were in legal and authorised possession; that the building was being previously used for commercial purposes and this was objected to by the landlord, whereupon the appellant stopped using the premises for commercial purpose and therefore the premises were being used for residential purposes by the appellant as well as by M/s. D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd. It was denied that late Shri Sahib Singh never gave any consent to the appellant to induct Shri S.K.Ajwani/D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P) Ltd. It was also denied that the ground floor' of the demised premises was lying vacant and the first floor was under unauthorised occupation of S.K.Ajwani/D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P)Ltd.

(3.) The parties went to trial on the basis of the aforesaid pleadings and led evidence in support of their respective stands. The Rent-Controller by its-judgment dated January 8,1986 passed an eviction order against the appellant holding that the appellant had sublet the premises to Shri S.K.Ajwani/D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P)Ltd without specific permission in writing of the landlord. While holding so, the Rent Controller on consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that M/s.D.Kumar Consulting Engineers (P)Ltd., which was admittedly in occupation of the demised premises, was a different entity from M/s.D.Kumar Consulting Engineers sole proprietary firm of D.Kumar, who was permitted to use the property jointly with the appellant tenant as per clause 9. In this regard he also relied on the statement of Shri Varinder Kumar,Secretary of the appellant company (RW 1) who stated that at the time of creation of tenancy in question, D.Kumar was the proprietor of M/s.D.Kumar Consulting Engineers. In addition he relied on the following circumstances to hold that the appellant had sublet the premises in violation of the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958.