NEW INDIA TRADERS Vs. SATISH SWARUP GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-landlord filed a petition for eviction on 27th March 1981 in the court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi against the appellants under Section 14(l)(b) and (k) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of one garrage in property owned by the respondent bearing no 7B, Netaji Subash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi let out to M/s New India Traders in the year 1946-47.

(2.) It was alleged in the petition that appellants 1 & 2 herein parted with possession, sub-let and assigned the premises to Shri Subhash Chander appellant no. 3 herein, in the year 1978-79 without any authority and permission of the respondent-landlord and used the premises for nonresidential purpose which is contrary to the conditions imposed on the landlord by Delhi Improvement Trust. Before filing the petition, a notice was sent by the respondent to appellants 1 & 2 on 7th January 1979 terminating the tenancy. The appellants contested the petition and filed the written statement in which it was denied that the premises were misused. It was denied that the premises were let out for residential purposes as alleged but were let out to the appellants for commercial purpose and were being used as such from the inception of the tenancy. It was further denied that appellants 1 & 2 had sub-let, assigned or parted with possession of the suit property to appellant no. 3 as alleged but appellant no. 3 was in possession as a partner in the business. The Additional Rent Controller on the basis of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the respondent bad conclusively proved that appellants 1 & 2 had parted with possession and sub-let the same to appellant no 3. It was further held that the plea of partnership taken by the appellants does not bold good because the appellants had failed to produce documents in support of their contention that there was a partnership with appellant no. 3. The Additional Rent Controller held that since the appellants had admitted that appellant no. 3 was in physical possession of the promises, the onus of proving the partnership was on the appellants/tenants. The appellants having failed to place on record the original partnership deed which was allegedly executed and registered as also the account books, had not discharged the burden and, therefore, allowed the eviction petition. The Additional Rent Controller however did not accept the second ground of eviction under Section 14( I )(k) of the Act and held that there was no misuser of the premises as alleged.

(3.) Against this order of the Additional Rent Controller the appellants/tenants tiled an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi being RCA 771/85. The Rent Control Tribunal also concurred with the finding of the Additional Rent Controller and dismissed the appeal by order dated 8th July 1985. The finding of the Additional Rent Controller on the ground of misuser under clause (k) of Sec. 14(1) of the Act was not challenged by the respondent-landlord before the Rent Control Tribunal. Thereafter, a review petition was filed by the appellants alongwith a prayer for adducing additional evidence. The Rent Control Tribunal however dismissed the review petition as well as the application for adducing additional evidence. The appellants have challenged the order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 8th July 1985 by way of this second appeal.