Ram Narain vs Tek Chand And Anr.
1988 Latest Caselaw 309 Del

JUDGMENT

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) This second appeal is directed against order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 16th January 1788 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 18th December 1986 was rejected.

(2) The respondents herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in the court of the Additional Rent Controller against the appellant herein in respect of a portion of the property known as Sanjay Market. Block C, Kewal Nagar Extension Azadpur, Delhi shown in red colour in site plan exhibited as Ext. AWl/l. The appellant was the tenant in respect of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 400.00 ft was alleged in the petition that the appellant had sub-let, assigned and parted with possession of one shop forming part of the disputed property to M/s Rajindra Motors and one room on first floor to M/s New Rohtak Haryana Goods Carrier. It is not disputed by the appellant that the appellant had parted with possession of one shop to M/s Rajindra Motors and one room on the first floor to M/s New Rohtak Haryana Goods Carrier, however it was contended that the appellant was the owner of the super-structure of the building and the respondents were the owners of the land alone and therefore, could not seek eviction on the ground of sub-letting. 439

(3) It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had taken only the land on rent from the respondents-landlords and the super-structure was constructed by him and, therefore, no eviction petition was maintainable in respect of the super-structure on the ground of sub-letting.

(4) I find no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. There are concurrent findings of fact of both the courts below that even the super-structure was constructed by the landlord. This being a second appeal, this Court does not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.

(5) It was next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the land in question is under acquisition and, therefore, the respondents could not have contracted the super-structure and in any event could not seek eviction of the appellant from the super-structure. There is no force in this argument as well. Even if the land is under acquisition, as long as the possession is with the landlord he can always claim eviction of a tenant if the tenant is found guilty of breach of the agreement of the tenancy.

(6) It was next contended that the appellant was not allowed to examine two witnesses and the application filed by the appellant for adducing additional evidence was wrongly rejected by the Additional Rent Controller.

(7) It appears that the appellant wanted to examine two witnesses to prove that the land in question is under acquisition. Since I have already held that even if the land is under acquisition, the landlord has right to seek eviction as long as the possession is not taken away by the Land Acquisition Collector, I do not think that any injustice has been done to the appellant by not allowing him to examine the two witnesses. I, therefore, see no merit in the second appeal. Dismissed.