KULWANT SINGH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent / landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioners on grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting under Sections 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the said Act") in respect of one shop situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. 495, Near Krishan Mandir, Najafgarh, Nangloi, Delhi stated to be let out at a rate of rent of Rs.700/- per month. It may, however, be noted that petitioner No. 2 is the tenant and petitioner No. 1 is the alleged sub-tenant. Petitioner No.1 is the son of petitioner No. 2. The petition was contested by the petitioners alleging that it is petitioner No. 1 herein, who is the tenant, and at the time of creation of tenancy, petitioner No. 2 was in Government service and, thus, there could not be any question of tenancy in his name. The rate of rent was also disputed and was stated to be Rs.300/- per month. The notice of demand for arrears of rent was, thus, stated to have been addressed wrongly to petitioner No. 2.

(2.) The parties led evidence and the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter to be referred to as, "the ARC") found that the tenant was in arrears of rent, but being the first default was entitled to the benefit under Section 14(2) of the said Act. The ground of sub-letting was found to be established and, thus, an eviction order was passed on 17.01.2002 under Section 14(1)(b) of the said Act.

(3.) The ARC found that the letting was through an oral agreement in June, 1978. The controversy revolved around the fact that in view of petitioner No. 2 being in Government service, he could not have taken the shop on rent for running the business. The petitioners were found to have deviated from their basic stand during the recording of the testimony as they claimed that the year of commencement of tenancy was 1987. Petitioner No. 2 himself stated that he retired from service on 31.01.1986. The ARC, thus, found that if the plea of the petitioners was accepted, then on the date of commencement of tenancy, petitioner No. 2 had already retired from service. The finding of the ARC on the scrutiny of evidence is as under :-