HAQIKAT RAI NANDA Vs. RAM LAL BANSIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveat No.78 of 2006 Respondent no.1/landlord filed a petition against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (herein-after referred to as the 'said Act') on grounds of subletting of the tenanted premises to respondent no.2 herein. The tenanted premises consists of a shop on the ground floor of premises no. 8736-A, Roshanara Road, Delhi with a monthly rent of Rs 70/-. The Additional Rent Controller in terms of an order dated 24.09.2002 dismissed the petition, but the appeal filed against the same by respondent no.1 before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal has been allowed in terms of the impugned order dated 10.08.2006.

(2.) The petitioner was stated to be carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of M/s Haqikat Rai Nanda and Company and was alleged to have parted possession to respondent no.2. The petitioner and respondent no.2 filed a joint written statement refuting the allegation and claiming that the petitioner is having the physical and legal possession of the tenanted premises. It was stated that since the business of sole proprietorship was not running smoothly, a partnership was formed by the petitioner herein with his son Sh. Anurag Nanda in 70:30 ratio in the loss and profit of the firm. In case of dissolution of the partnership, the sole and absolute tenant was to be the petitioner alone. Thus the petitioner was stated to be a dominant partner in the partnership firm under the name and style of respondent no.2 herein.

(3.) The respondent no.1 entered the witness box to prove his case while the petitioner and one Sh. Jagdish Chandra, a local shop keeper adduced evidence on behalf of the petitioner. In the course of evidence, it transpired that though the allegation was that the respondent no.2 was a partnership firm, the son of the petitioner Sh. Anurag Nanda was operating the bank account of respondent no.2 as its sole proprietor. This was however sought to be explained by the petitioner as a matter of business convenience as he was not highly educated. This explanation was accepted by the Additional Rent Controller.