SHYAM SUNDER DANIA Vs. J D KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Smt.Motia Devi/original respondent No. 2 filed an eviction petition against the petitioners on the ground of subletting under Section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of shop No. R-16(D-4/495-A) Aruna Park, Shakarpur Extension, Delhi-92. Petitioner No. 1 was stated to have been inducted as a tenant by a written rent agreement dated 08.06.1973 and was alleged to have sublet assigned or otherwise parted with the whole of the tenancy shop in favour of petitioner No. 2, his son, without the written consent of the landlord about a year prior to the filing of the petition. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had shifted to another premises at Vikas Marg where he was running separate business under the name and style of M/s Dania Photo while petitioner No. 2 came into exclusive possession of the tenanted premises and was doing the business under the name and style of M/s Dania Photo Service.

(2.) The petition was contested by the petitioners and after recording of evidence in terms of the order dated 01.09.1995 the petition was dismissed. The order of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as ARC) records that late Smt.Motia Devi and her son appeared in the witness box. It was alleged that petitioner No. 2 opens and closes the shop and that petitioner No. 2 himself told the witness that he was paying Rs 400 to Rs 500 per month to his father, petitioner No. 1. The summons of the petition was also alleged to be served on petitioner No. 1 at the new shop address. Both the petitioners also appeared in the witness box as RW1 and RW2 and deposed that the shop at F-14, Vikas Marg had been taken on rent by petitioner No. 2 and was in his possession since 1975. Petitioner No/2 was stated to have a licence to run the business since 1991 in that premises. The ARC found that respondent No. 2 had failed to establish that the petitioner No. 1 ever divested himself of the legal possession.

(3.) The original petitioner/respondent No. 2 herein aggrieved by the order filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ARCT) in terms of the order dated 30.09.1998 allowed the appeal. It is this order which is sought to be . challenged by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.