SAMEER WASON & ANR Vs. AGYA RAM SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be landlords qua the respondent in respect of premises described as shop on ground floor in property no. 53, Old Rajinder Nagar Market, Delhi, the tenancy statedly having been created by Rent Agreement dated 15.07.1988. They had instituted a case for eviction (petition no. E-185/1998) in the Court of Additional Rent Controller on 21.12.1998 invoking grounds under Section 14 (1) (a), (b) and (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The case was contested by the respondent on all counts, evidence having been led by each side. It eventually resulted in judgment dated 02.06.2003 whereby the Additional Rent Controller having found the respondent guilty of being in default of payment of rent within the mischief of Section 14 (1) (a), closed the proceedings by granting the benefit of protection under Section 14 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the respondent (tenant) having complied with the order under Section 15 (1). There has been no challenge brought to the findings in that regard or the result on that score by either side, the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller to that extent having attained finality. The Additional Rent Controller held, by the said judgment dated 02.06.2003, that the petitioners had failed to prove their case on the ground under Section 14 (1) (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The said ground was not pressed by any appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and, thus, also needs quietus. The ground of sub-letting under Section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, however, persists and has come up for fresh consideration before this Court through the petition at hand.

(2.) The Additional Rent Controller had granted eviction order on the petition under Section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 holding the respondent-tenant to have sub-let the premises. The respondent-tenant had challenged the said finding and result. The appeal (RCT 82/2009 old no. RCA 504/2003) was allowed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal by judgment dated 108.2011 and it was held that the petitioners had failed to prove sub-letting. Thus, the eviction order was set aside and the petition on that ground was dismissed.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and having gone through the record, including the pleadings and the evidence (copies whereof were submitted at the hearing), this Court finds no merit in the petition.