Radhey Shyam vs Sunder Dass
1985 Latest Caselaw 453 Del

JUDGMENT

G.C. Jain, J.

1. This second appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') is from the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, dated March 6, 1985.

2. The dispute is in respect of a shop No. 5, in building No. 11 Sachdev Cloth Market, Rani Bagh, Delhi. In was let out to the appellant, the respondent Sunder Dass on February 1, 1973 on a monthly rent Rs. 100/-. On April 20, 1982, the landlord brought a petition (SIC) eviction of the tenant from the said shop under Clause (b) of the proviso Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It was alleged that the tenant (SIC) sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord to one M/s. Bhayaji Tailors and the suit premises were occupied by the tailors.

3. The tenant resisted the petition. It was averred that "it is vehemently denied that the respondent sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to M/s. Bhayaji Tailors as alleged. The respondent has been occupying and using the premises for business purposes and it is still in his occupation. Allegations made are all false, fabricated and self-motivated."

4. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that (1) M/s. Bhayaji Tailors were in occupation of the shop for a certain period; and (2) that neither the tenant nor his son had anything to do with the said business. On these findings they inferred parting with the possession of the premises in dispute by the tenant in favor of M/s. Bhayaji Tailors and consequently an order for eviction was made under Clause (b) of the Act.

5. That M/s. Bhayaji Tailors were in occupation of the shop in dispute has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant. This fact had been admitted by the tenant in reply to his notice dated November 23, 1981.

6. Mr. Bhatia has, however, vehemently assailed the finding of the courts below that neither the tenant nor his son had anything to do with the said business. He pointed out that the said business was carried on by the son of the tenant who was also known as Sheelu.

7. In reply to the notice the plea taken was that the tenant himself was carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Bhayaji Tailors in the shop. In the written statement the tenant had not specifically pleaded that the business being carried on in the name of Bhayaji Tailors was his business, being carried on by his son on his behalf. In any case both the courts have found that the said business was not the business of the tenant or his son. There is no infirmity in this finding.

8. The landlord as PW 1 and his witness Lila Ram PW 2 stated that said business was being run by one boy named Sheelu. No suggestion at all was put to them that Sheelu was the son of the tenant or that the said business was the business of the tenant. Suggestion was of course was made to PW 3 and PW 4 that Sheelu was the son of the tenant. That suggestion in itself in my view, was not sufficient to hold that Sheelu was the son of the tenant, because the tenant in his statement has nowhere stated that Sheelu was his son. On the other hand he gave the name of his son as Parveen Kumar.

9. In all the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the finding recorded by the courts below was correct. In any case, it was not a finding which could be termed as unreasonable, perverse or arbitrary. No interference is called for in the second appeal. In find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.

10. The tenant is however allowed three months' time to vacate the premises. No order as to costs.