Shri Mohan Nainwal vs Mcd & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2441 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment:17.04.2012

+     CM(M) 429/2012 & CM Nos. 6712-13/2012


      3-W INTERNATIONAL                         ..... Petitioner
                   Through              Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Adv.

                      versus


      ASHOK KUMAR SEHDEV                           ..... Respondent
                  Through               Nemo.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The impugned order is dated 18.02.2012. This order was passed

by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) affirming the order of the

Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.03.2011 vide which the

eviction petition filed by the landlord namely Ashok Kumar Sehdev

seeking eviction of this tenant i.e. M/s 3-W International from the

demised premises i.e. shop bearing No. 149, DDA Cycle Market,

Jhandewalan, New Delhi under Section 14 (1)(a)& (b) of the Delhi Rent

Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed.

2 Record shows that the eviction petition had been filed by the

landlord against the tenant on the aforenoted two provisions. Contention

was that the respondent has sublet the premises to M/s Surya

International, M/s J.K. Gum Industries as also to Mr. S. Sahni and had

present sublet to M/s Convest Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Ground under

Section 14 (109b) of the DRCA had been pleaded. Petition had also

been filed under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA; contention being that

the tenant was in arrears of rent and inspite of last legal notice dated

01.11.1999 having served upon the tenant, he has failed to pay the

arrears of rent; a notice under Section 6-A of the DRCA had also been

issued on 10.12.1999 seeking enhancement of rent; rent not having

being paid, the tenant was also liable to be evicted on the ground under

Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA.

3 At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is

not seriously disputing the finding returned under Section 14 (1)(a) of

the DRCA as the question whether the tenant is entitled to benefit under

Section 14 (2) of the DRCA is yet pending before the ARC and as such

his arguments have only been confined to the finding returned by the

RCT under Section 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA.

4 Record shows that after the filing of the eviction petition, written

statement had been filed; contention of the tenant was that M/s Surya

International is the proprietorship concern of Mr. S.L. Sahbi; Mr. S.L.

Sahni being the tenant in the suit property and not being different from

M/s Surya International, there was no question of subletting; it was

denied that the premises had been sub-let to M/s Surya International or

M/s J.K. Gum Industries or to Mr. S. Sahni and M/s Convest

Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

5 One witness was examined by the landlord namely Ashok Sehdev

examined as AW-1 who had reiterated all these averments in the

eviction petition on oath; he has on oath stated that the premises had

been sublet by the tenant S.L. Sahni to one Mr. S.K.Sahni who is

illegally occupying the premises and the tenant has parted with

possession of the premises; having been sublet it to another firm; the

fact that Mr. S.L. Sahni was doing business from this firm and that he

had a telephone connection had been proved as Ex. AW-1/17; on oath it

had also been reiterated that the portion of the premises had also been let

out to M/s Surya International @ Rs. 3,000/- per month; it was

categorically denied that M/s Surya International was the proprietorship

concern of Mr. S.L. Sahni; on oath it had been reiterated that a portion

of the premises had also been let out to M/s J.K. Gum Industries as also

to M/s Pacific Aircon Pvt. Ltd. which is dealing in the sale and

manufacturer of air-conditioners; pamphlet issued by the said business

concern had been proved as Ex. AW-1/18. The deposition on oath was

to the effect that the respondent had also sublet to another portion of the

premises to M/s Convest Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and its director

Mr.Dinesh Kapoor was using this premises; M/s Sitco Impex Pvt. Ltd.

was also working from the aforenoted company; clear case of sub-letting

is made out.

6 Record further shows that this witness had not been cross-

examined; it is also an admitted fact that no evidence has been led by the

respondent. It is in this background that the evidence which was

adduced and collected by the trial Court has to be viewed.

7 This Court is sitting in its power of superintendence under Article

227 of the Constitution of India and unless and until a flagrant injustice

or manifest illegality has been committed by the two courts below,

powers of interference are limited. The Apex Court in Waryam Singh

Vs. Amarnath AIR 1954 SC 215 a judgment of the Constitution Bench

has laid down the guidelines which were to be followed by the High

Courts in exercise of its powers of superintendence. This Court is not an

appellate forum. No patent illegality or perversity has also been pointed

out by learned counsel for the petitioner.

8 The findings returned were based on a cogent and clear evidence

led by the petitioner that the finding was returned by the ARC and

endorsed by the RCT that a case of sub-letting and parting with

possession has been made out by the tenant in favour of the sub-tenant;

the documentary evidence had been adverted to in the right perspective.

In this background, the impugned judgment does not call for any

interference.

9     Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.



                                             INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL      17, 2012
A