ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Vs. PREM BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the order dated 30th November 2006 passed by the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in R. C. A. No. 416/2005 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control act (the Act) against the eviction order dated 29th July 2005 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act has been dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner Atul Glass Industries (P) Ltd. is admittedly the tenant of the respondent in respect of suit premises bearing Showroom No. G-4, Ground Floor, mansarover, 90, Nehru Place, New Delhi. The respondent landlord filed the eviction petition, inter-alia, on the ground contained in section 14 (1) (b) of the Act with the plea that the suit premises has been sub-let and/or parted with possession of by the petitioner to three different entities, namely, M/s. Image glass House, M/s. Galhotra Express Commercial Art and M/s. T. S. Bedi. The eviction petition was contested by the petitioner. After the trial by a detailed judgment, the learned Additional Rent Controller Delhi returned the finding that the petitioner tenant has sub-let the premises to the aforesaid three entities. The Additional Rent Control Tribunal, as aforesaid, has dismissed the first appeal and that is how the matter is before this court.

(3.) THE first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that M/s. Image glass House was merely a trading name of the petitioner and the petitioner was, in fact, carrying on the business under that name from the suit premises. The petitioner is in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises. So far as M/s. Galhotra Express Commercial Art and M/s. T. S. Bedi are concerned, the stand of the petitioner was that they were not operating from within the suit premises and were direct tenants of the landlords. It was secondly contended that while deciding the appeal, the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal has merely reproduced passages from the findings of the learned ARC and has not applied its own mind to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at a finding of sub-tenancy or parting with possession of the suit premises by the tenant to third parties. Learned counsel also argues that a perusal of the eviction petition would show that there was a contradiction in the eviction petition itself, inasmuch as, in response to the column "whether there are any sub-tenants etc. ,", the landlord has answered in the negative whereas in response to column (9) i. e. "whether the premises are occupied by single tenant or more than one tenant", the landlord had stated "leased to single tenanted respondent has sublet assigned and parted with the possession of the whole of the suit premises to three persons of the tenanted premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the owner/landlord/ petitioner". Similar averments were made in paragraph 18 (a) of the eviction petition. The counsel also drew my attention to written statement filed by the petitioner to the eviction petition and particularly to paragraph 18 (a) (ii ).