GURSHARAN KAUR Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is concededly the landlord vis-'-vis the respondent, the tenant, in respect of premises described as shop situated in property no. 663/12, Mehta Market, Pandit Park, Patparganj Road, Delhi- 110051 as specifically shown in colour red in the site plan filed with the petition for eviction submitted on 04.02.2012 which was registered by the Rent Controller as eviction case no. 10/2012. The case for eviction was instituted on the ground provided under Section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the allegations that the respondent (the tenant) had sublet the demised premises to two persons Amrik Singh and Satnam Singh who were in its use and enjoyment to his exclusion. It may be mentioned here that it came out during the trial that Satnam Singh is real brother of the tenant while Amrik Singh is his nephew. The case was contested by the tenant with explanation that he was running his business in the name and style of Amole Electricals and that Amrik Singh and Satnam Singh were his employees. Evidence was led by both sides wherein Guriqbal Singh (PW-1), the husband of the petitioner appeared on her behalf, she also examining two neighbours (PW-2 and PW-3) primarily to bring on record that it is Amrik Singh who was in occupation and use of the premises. The respondent examined himself (as RW-1) and also relied on the evidence of Amrik Singh (RW-2) and Satnam Singh (RW-3). The Rent Controller dismissed the petition by judgment dated 14.01.2015 holding that the petitioner had failed to prove the allegation of subletting. Her appeal (RCA 09/2015) was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal by its judgment dated 08.01.2016.

(2.) The petition at hand has been filed seeking to assail the abovementioned consistent judgments of the two forums as mentioned above.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone through the record with their assistance, this Court finds no substance or merit in the petition. In the considered view of this Court, the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal have appreciated the evidence adduced by both sides in proper light and have reached the correct conclusions on facts.