Jaswinder Pal Singh vs Raminder Singh (Titoo)
2011 Latest Caselaw 5937 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             Date of Judgment: 05.12.2011

+     CM(M) No. 292/2010

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

                     Versus

RAMINDER SINGH (TITOO)                         ..........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-

Raminder Singh has sub-let these premises in favour of his

brother Kuldeep Singh who is now in exclusive possession of the

suit premises and is carrying on his business from there; further

contention is that Raminder Singh is in fact an employee of M/s.

Robin Motors at Shop No. 9/10, S-1, Ajay Enclave near Ajanta

Cinema, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. To support this stand 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 Raminder Singh does not sit in the shop anymore;

this business is being run by his brother Kuldeep Singh. The

tenant to dispute this submission had come into the witness box as

RW3; he has admitted that his brother Kuldeep Singh is working

alongwith him in the suit premises since the inception of his

tenancy but the registration of the licence issued by the MCD for

carrying on his business of sale of eggs continues in the name of

the original tenant i.e. Raminder Singh; his further deposition was

that his brother-in-law Joginder Singh Bajaj is the owner of M/s

Robin Motors with whom he has no connection and he is not an

employee in the said business.

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

documentary evidence produced by the witnesses had been

correctly appreciated by the two courts below. RW4 was the

licence clerk from the Health Department, Rohini, who had

produced the original licence issued from the Health Department

in favour of the tenant namely Raminder Singh which has been

exhibited as RW4/A; he has categorically deposed that this licence

was issued on 08.02.1995 in the name of Raminder Singh and was

renewed up to date. Eviction petition has been filed in the year

1996; this witness had come into the witness box in the year 2004;

right from 1995 to 2004, this licence continues to be issued and

renewed in the name of the original tenant namely Raminder

Singh. RW5 had produced the record from the Municipal

Magistrate to show an entry in the municipal register Ex. RW5/A

showing that a challan had been issued to Raminder Singh (who

was having a shop at 2026/157, Ganesh Pura, Tri Nagar) for

which a fine of Rs. 50/- had been imposed upon him.

5. RW6 Joginder Singh Bajaj (brother-in-law of the tenant), the

proprietor of M/s Robin Motors had categorically deposed that the

document of ownership shows that this business of M/s Robin

Motors is being run by him; he had produced the telephone and

electricity bills Ex. RW-6/D and Ex.RW6/E as also the original

declaration of ownership with regard to his shops and his visiting

cards exhibited as RW6/F and RW6/G to substantiate this

submission.

6. The fact finding courts below have correctly appreciated

this evidence for 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 original

tenant Raminder Singh continues to be in possession of the suit

premises.

7. Vehement submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the sub-tenant i.e. Kuldeep Singh continues to be

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

been noted and discussed (supra). Kuldeep Singh was only

working with his brother; documentary evidence produced by

RW6 shows that the business was being run by him and licence is

also in his name. There is no evidence to show that Kuldeep Singh

was in exclusive possession of the shop; both the fact find courts

had correctly noted that a case of sub-letting, assignment, parting

of the whole or part of the premises is not made out.

8. This court is sitting in its 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 grave miscarriage of justice which is clearly not so

in the instant petition.

9. Petition is without any merit; impugned judgment calls for

no interference.

10. Petition is dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J DECEMBER 05, 2011/rb