Delhi High Court
Amrik Singh vs Balraj on 4 September, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 71/2012
Date of Decision: 04.09.2012
AMRIK SINGH ......PETITIONER
Through: In person.
Versus
BALRAJ ......RESPONDENT
Through: Mr.S.L.Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution seeks
quashing of the order dated 1.6.2011 of the Rent Control Tribunal
(RCT) in RCT No. 38/10 whereby the order of Sr.Civil Judge-cum-
Rent Controller (Central) dated 12.8.2010 passed in Eviction
Petition No. 4/2009, was set aside.
2. The petitioner had filed a petition for eviction against the
respondents on the ground under Section 14(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act'). The learned Rent
Controller dismissed the grounds of eviction under clause (c) of
Section 14(1) of the Act. So far as the ground under clause (a) is
concerned, benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act was given to the
respondent. With regard to clause (b), it was held that the petitioner
has proved the respondent having sublet the suit shop to one Uttam
Singh, and thus, he passed the eviction order against him under
clause (b) of Section 14 (1) of the Act. The respondent/tenant
carried the matter in appeal before the RCT on both the grounds i.e.
under clause (a) as also clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the Act. The
tenant however gave up his ground under clause (a) and confined the
appeal to challenge the order of Rent Controller only on the ground
under clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the Act. The Tribunal reversed
the findings of the Rent Controller on this ground and held there to
be no subletting and consequently, allowed the appeal, resulting in
dismissal of the eviction petition of the petitioner. The said order of
RCT is under challenge in the instant petition.
3. I have heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel
for the respondent.
4. It is noted that the Rent Controller has mainly relied upon the
affidavit and the written statement that was filed by the respondent
before the Competent Authority (Slums) as also the statement of
PW5 Sanjay Ahuja and PW6 Kuldeep Singh. The learned RCT has
rightly noted that the Rent Controller has misread the affidavit and
the written statement filed before the Competent Authority (Slums).
I have gone through the said affidavit and the written statement.
Undisputedly, the number of suit premises in the tenancy of the
respondent is 2382-83/12, Beadonpura, Karol Bagh. In the affidavit,
there is a mention at various places of this premises 2382/12,
measuring 6' x 3' feet in the possession of the respondent. There is
also a mention of adjoining property 2381/12. With regard to this
property, it was the case of the respondent that this was in the
tenancy of Bal Kishan and it came to be purchased by his father in
June, 1995 by way of a registered sale deed and thereafter, by him,
in May, 1999. It was this shop which was stated by him at different
places to be in the tenancy of Puneet Kumar and Uttam Singh. He
has throughout maintained and nowhere stated the suit shop to be in
the possession of Uttam Singh at any point of time. I am not able to
see as to from where the Rent Controller read about the respondent
having admitted the suit shop to be with Uttam Singh at any point of
time. The controversy that was sought to be raised regarding
adjoining premises 2381/12, was unnecessary and extraneous to the
entire issue before the court. The reliance by the Rent Controller on
the testimony of PW5 Sanjay Ahuja is also misplaced. He had
visited the suit shop about 5-6 years back. He had never seen Uttam
Singh paying any rent to the respondent. He was entirely shaky and
changed statements and stated that the tenanted shop must be
approximately 6' x 10' feet, which was neither the case of the
petitioner nor the respondent. Then, he stated that it may be possible
that the shop may be of 6' x 3' feet. He had categorically stated that
he had been seeing the respondent sitting at the shop since ten years
back. From this statement of PW5 that he had been seeing the
respondent sitting for the last 10 years in the shop and saw him there
whenever he visited, and that he never saw Uttam Singh giving any
rent of shop, I do not see how conclusion to be drawn about alleged
subletting. Similarly, PW6, brother of the petitioner, did not make
any cogent statement. He had stated that the subletting was within
six months of the letting of the premises in January, 1982. This is
entirely inconsistent with the plea of the petitioner that the subletting
was done in the year 1992. Then, he was also not sure as to whether
the size of the shop was 6' x 5' or 10' x 5' feet.
5. Another pertinent aspect, and on which notice was taken by
the Rent Control Tribunal, is that only five months before the filing
of the eviction petition, a notice dated 30.4.2001 was served upon
the respondent by the petitioner. There is no iota of any allegation
of subletting or parting with the possession of the suit premises by
the respondent. It was submitted by learned counsel for the
respondent, and which was not controverted, that as many as four
notices were served by the petitioner upon the respondent, prior to
the filing of the petition and in none of those, there was a whisper of
any subletting. The doing of some work by Uttam Singh in the
adjoining premises at some point of time, seems to have created the
entire confusion. It may be because of neighbourhood, he might be
present at some point of time at the suit shop. The petitioner has not
led any cogent and sufficient evidence except the bald assertions that
the suit premises has been sublet by the respondent to Uttam Singh.
6. Having discussed the above, I do not see any infirmity or
illegality in the impugned order of Rent Control Tribunal,
warranting any interference by this court under Article 227 of the
Constitution. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2012
akb
