Jaswinder Pal Singh vs Kishan Lal
2011 Latest Caselaw 5933 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 05.12.2011

+     CM(M) No. 293/2010

JASWINDER PAL SINGH                              ...........Petitioner
                  Through:           Mr. S.D. Dixit, Advocate.

                     Versus

KISHAN LAL                                      ..........Respondent
                          Through:   Mr. Arun Sukhija, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. The impugned judgment is dated 06.01.2010 passed by the

Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) dismissing the eviction

petition filed by the landlord-Jaswinder Pal Singh under Sections

14(1)(a) (b) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA).

2. Record shows that the landlord has filed the present

eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a)(b) & (j) of the Delhi Rent

Control Act (DRCA). The ARC had dismissed the petition under

Section 14(1)(a) & (j) of the DRCA which has been endorsed by

the impugned judgment which is not the subject matter of

challenge before this court. The courts below had also dismissed

the petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA which is the only

subject matter of dispute before this court.

3. Record shows that the present eviction petition filed under

Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA contending that the tenant-Kishan

Lal has sub-let these premises in favour of his brother Om Prakash

who is now in exclusive possession of the suit premises and is

carrying on his business from there; further contention is that

Kishan Lal has now shifted his business place and is now running

it from C/8/157, Keshav Puram, Delhi under the name and style of

M/S Arora Auto Centre.

4. To support their respective stands the parties had examined

their respective witnesses. The landlord had produced three

witnesses; six witnesses had been produced on behalf of the

tenant. Landlord (examined as AW3) has deposed that his tenant

Kishan Lal does not sit in the shop anymore; this business is

being run by his brother Om Prakash. The tenant to dispute this

submission had come into the witness box as RW2; he has

admitted that his brothers Om Prakash and Vijay are working

alongwith him in the suit premises; both his brothers have

separate ration cards and Om Prakash resides at C-6/192A,

Lawrence Road whereas Vijay resides at C-8/157, Keshav Puram;

his further deposition was to the effect that there is no

establishment by the name of Arora Auto Works at C-8/157,

Keshav Puram. RW3 known to the respondent had deposed to the

effect that Kishan Lal is the person who opens and closes the

shop; this testimony of RW3 has not been assailed in his cross-

examination; RW6, the Chartered Accountant had come into the

witness box and deposed that Kishan Lal is filing his Income Tax

Return as proprietor of M/s Mahender Cycle Works; this part of

his cross-examination has also not been assailed. RW4 was the son

of OM Prakash; his testimony is also to the effect that Om prakash

and Vijay who are his father and uncle respectively were working

under Kishan Lal; a mere line in the cross-examination of this

witness that Arora Autor Works was opened at C-8/157, Keshav

Puram was not sufficient to dislodge the other remaining evidence

both oral and documentary which had established that the tenant

Kishan was still running his business of Mahender Cycle Works

from the disputed premises as has been vehemently argued by the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Relevant would it be to state that both the oral and

documentary evidence had been correctly appreciated by the two

courts below.

6. The two fact finding courts below have correctly

appreciated this evidence holding that no case of sub-letting has

been made out in favour of the landlord and he was rightfully not

entitled of a decree of eviction on the said ground as the original

tenant Kishan Lal continues to be in possession of the suit

premises.

7. Vehement submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that sub-tenant i.e. Om Prakash continues to be in

possession of the suit premises is not borne out from what has

been noted and discussed (supra). AW1 has in fact admitted that

the keys of the shop continue to remain with Kishan Lal; AW3 the

landlord has also in his cross-examination admitted that the shop

under the name and style of M/s Arora Auto Works was owned by

the father of Kishan Lal and his brother sits in the shop; evidence

both oral and documentary has established that the two brothers

of Kishan Lal i.e. Om Prakash and Vijay were helping him in

business of his shop; case of sub-letting, assignment, parting of

the whole or part of the premises was clearly not made out. The

impugned finding calls for no interference.

8. This court is sitting in its powers of superintendence under

Article 227 of the Constitution; it is not an appellate forum;

interference is called for only if there is a manifest error or an

illegality which has resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice

which is clearly not so in the instant case. Petition is without any

merit; impugned judgment calls for no interference.

9. Petition is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

DECEMBER 05, 2011 rb