KAUSHALYA DEVI Vs. DEVI DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.

(2.) THE shop in dispute, was let out to Devi Dayal on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- for running ration depot in the year 1966. Later on the rent was raised to Rs. 70/- per month. The landlady Kaushalya Devi sought the ejectment of her tenant from the shop, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that the tenant Devi Dayal had sublet the same to his son Chander Bhan who was in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute whereas Devi Dayal tenant was running his separate business in a shop owned by his wife. The second ground of ejectment was that the tenant had changed the user of the building. The same was let out for doing Kiryana business whereas now the business of repairing radios was carried out therein. The stand taken by the tenant was that the premises had not been sublet, as alleged. Respondent No. 2 Chander Bhan, was his real son and he had joined hands with him in the business for the last more than 10 years. Both of them constituted a joint Hindu family. Therefore, the question of subletting did not arise. It was denied that there was any change of user, as alleged in the ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller appointed a local commissioner vide order August 20, 1982, directing him to visit the spot and to report about the name of the occupant of the shop and also to report as to what business was being carried on in the demised premises. Accordingly, he filed his report dated August 23, 1982, wherein he stated :-

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant submitted that since the father and the son formed a joint Hindu family, the question of subletting did not arise. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan, 1988(1) RCR 629, wherein it was observed that so long as the tenant retains the right to possession there is no parting with possession in terms of clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. According to the learned counsel in the present case since the tenant had the right to retain the possession there was no parting of the possession in terms of the statute and, therefore, the question of subletting did not arise. The learned counsel also referred to Mohinder Pal Singh v. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur and others, 1986(1) RCR 177, 1986 HRR 67 and Gurbir Singh v Ram Singh, 1986 RCR (Supp.) 549, 1986(1) Rent Law Reporter 28 to contend that where the father and the son form a joint Hindu family, the question of subletting did not arise.