(1.) Butta Ram, husband of the respondent, concededly was a tenant in the premises in question under the petitioner, it having been described as a shop bearing no.4/2755, Bihari Colony opposite Prakash Punj School, Shahdara, Delhi. Butta Ram, the evidence led on record before the Rent Controller would show, had gone missing on 09.07.2002. On 01.02.2006, the petitioner filed an eviction case on the grounds under Section 14(1)(a), (b) and (j) against Butta Ram in which the respondent came to be impleaded as a party. The allegations on the ground under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 were that Butta Ram had effaced himself from the premises and had sublet the same in favour of his wife i.e. the respondent. The respondent, while putting in contest, came up with the plea that she was running the business in the shop on behalf of her husband who had gone missing under mysterious circumstances, she suspecting that he may have died or even been killed.
(2.) The Rent Controller had initially dismissed the petition on all counts by judgment dated 201.2011. On appeal (RCA 02/2011), the Rent Control Tribunal, however, by its judgment dated 31.05.2011 remanded the matter for fresh decision observing that some of the crucial questions had remained unanswered. The matter was thus decided afresh by judgment dated 16.04.2014 whereby the Rent Controller reiterated the previous decision on the grounds under Section 14(1)(a) and (j) but held the other ground under Section 14 (1) (b) proved against the respondent holding her to be a sub-lettee, not entitled to any protection and, thus, granted an eviction order.
(3.) The respondent challenged the above said fresh decision before the Rent Control Tribunal by appeal (RCA 22/2014). Noticeably, the petitioner did not bring any appeal to assail the dismissal of the case on the grounds under Sections 14(1)(a) and (j) of Delhi Rent control Act, 1958, such findings and result consequently having become final and binding between the parties.