LALITA GUPTA Vs. MODERN TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A petition was filed by the appellant against the respondents under Sections 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') inter alia alleging that respondents No. 1 to 5 had sublet the tenanted premises to respondent No. 6. The petition was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller (for short, 'ARC') in terms of the judgment dated 20.7.2002 and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide judgment dated 4.2.2003 albeit on slightly different grounds. The present case is a second appeal, which would only arise on a question of law.

(2.) The factual matrix is limited. There is no dispute that respondent No. 1 is a partnership firm of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as partners. The tenancy was originally created in favour of respondent No. 1 firm. A document was subsequently executed on 13.9.1968 between the parties in the present petition stating that the appellant agrees that the office of respondent No. 6 be located in the tenanted premises as it is a family concern consisting only of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 with the said persons as shareholders and Directors.

(3.) There were initially allegations made of induction of a third-party, but it transpired during the proceedings that it is respondent No. 6, who is the franchisee and there is no case made out of sub-letting to a third party. Respondent No. 6 was held to be a tenant. However, this finding was interfered with by the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that it is respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who are actually tenants and the user of the premises by respondent No. 6 would not amount to subletting. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the physical possession vested with the said respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and there was no assignment of tenancy as to divest themselves of the rights as a tenant. It was found on the basis of evidence on record in the form of letters and pleadings that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had expressed their animus domini in favour of respondent No. 6 being the tenant, but there was no element of corpus possessionis.