Delhi High Court
Rajinder Parsad Singhal vs Sharda Devi on 5 May, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM (M) 216/2019 & CM APPL.6054/2019
Judgment reserved on : 08.02.2019
Date of decision : 05.05.2020
SHRI RAJINDER PARSAD SINGHAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Piyush Jain, Advocate
versus
SMT. SHARDA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Satish Sahai, Advocate for
Caveator.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
JUDGMENT
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the setting aside of the
impugned order dated 07.01.2019 of the Rent Control Tribunal, THC
in RCT No.33/2017 whereby the said appeal of the petitioner and two
applications under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC filed by the petitioner
were dismissed whilst upholding the impugned judgment of the
learned trial Court dated 30.03.2017 i.e. the Pilot Court (Central
District), THC in Eviction Petition No.E-51/2017 whereby the
eviction petition filed by the landlady i.e. the respondent to the present
petition, Smt. Sharda Devi against the present petitioner Rajender
Prasad Singhal under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 as amended (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act')was allowed
and the present petitioner was directed to be evicted from the tenanted
premises comprising one shop in property bearing no.B-1437, Shastri
Nagar, New Delhi-110052, it having been held that the landlady i.e.
the petitioner of the eviction petition has successfully established that
the respondent herein had sublet, assigned and parted with possession
of the tenanted premises to Shri Raj Kumar and his son Shri Arpit
Singhal.
2. At the outset, it is essential to observe that the petitioner herein
has already availed of the remedy of an appeal to the Rent Control
Tribunal and w.e.f. 01.12.1988, the remedy of the second appeal to
this Court on a question of law has since been deleted and even the
appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act to the Rent Control Tribunal
can be preferred only on a question of law.
3. The respondent was present on 08.02.2019 as the Caveator of
Caveat 121/2019 when the matter had been taken up for consideration
and was heard and the caveat discharged. Arguments have thus been
addressed on behalf of either side.
4. It is essential to observe that as laid down by this Court in
Nawal Kishore Vs. Mohd. Yakub in CM(M) 1256/2012 decided on
24.08.2017 in view of the verdict of this Court in Jasbir Singh vs
Manjit Kaur & Ors. in CM(M) No.1041/2011, the petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution has been held to be maintainable
before this Court though this Court cannot act as a Court of appeal
thereunder and it has been held that interference in terms of Article
227 of the Constitution is only to keep the authorities and Courts in
the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court within their bounds and
where it results in manifest miscarriage of justice, and not in all cases,
to correct mere errors. Further, as held by this Court in Nawal Kishore
(Supra) and Jasbir Singh (Supra), the powers under Article 227 of
the Constitution are discretionary in nature, to be exercised where the
subordinate Court ignores material piece of evidence or considers
some evidence which should not have been considered resulting into
injustice. It is however, the cardinal principal laid down vide the said
verdicts that where there are two views possible and the view adopted
by the subordinate Court is reasonable and a plausible one, this Court
would not be justified in interfering in such cases merely to arrive at a
different view in the matter. It is on the basis of these fundamental
principles laid down in Nawal Kishore (Supra) and Jasbir Singh
(Supra) that the matter is taken up for consideration of the said aspect
alone.
5. The respondent herein vide the Eviction Petition No. 51/2017
filed on 13.01.2017 under Section 14 (1)(b) of the CPC vide para 18
(a) thereof has submitted the grounds on which the eviction of the
tenant i.e. the petitioner herein had been sought submitting to the
effect:
"18(a) The ground on which the eviction of the tenant is sought:-
That the respondent is tenant under the petitioner, who is
owner/landlord of the tenanted premises has, on or after
09.06.1952 has sub-let, assigned and otherwise parted with
possession of the whole of the tenanted shop to his brother
Sh.Raj Kumar and his son Sh.Arpit Singhal without obtaining
the consent in writing of the petitioner/landlord. Further
particulars in support of this plea are as under:-
I. That initially Sh.Geeta Ram father of the respondent was
inducted as a tenant by the petitioner and he was
carrying on business therefrom of General Store till the
time of his death in the year 1991.
II. That after the death of Sh.Geeta Ram, all his legal heirs
gave their no objections in writing to the petitioner
whereby they gave their no objection if the respondent
alone is accepted as tenant as also mentioned in para 14
above.
III. That accordingly the respondent alone was accepted as
tenant by the petitioner in respect of the tenanted shop
and the respondent started paying rent to the petitioner of
the tenanted shop against rent receipts counter foils of
which were regularly maintained by the petitioner which
used to be signed by the respondent himself.
IV. That the respondent after becoming sole tenant of the
tenanted shop started carrying on business of a General
Store from the tenanted shop after the death of his father
in the year 1991 and continued to do the said business.
After few years the respondent started his own factory of
manufacturing Chappals (Slippers) under the name and
style of Gupta Plastic from premises bearing no.1337/90,
Talaab Road, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035 which business
he continued to carry on from the said premises till or
about the year 2002-03. The said premises were taken on
rent by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent
shifted his said factory of manufacturing Chappals
(Slippers) and its accessories to premises bearing
no.308/14, 'Manish Gali' Shahzada Bagh, New Delhi-
110035. As learnt the said premises are owned by the
respondent. There exists a electricity connection
provided by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited
(TPDDP) Ltd. bearing CA 60011721747 in the said
premises. Though the said connection is in the name of
Gurvinder Industries but it is the respondent who has
been consuming electricity from the said connection and
paying electricity charges for the same. The respondent
is having Telephone connections bearing
no.9212560201/6524367 in his name which exists on the
electricity bills issued by Tata Power Delhi Distribution
Limited (TPDDP) Ltd. A copy of the said electricity
(TPDDP) Ltd. bill is annexed as Annexure-E. The
respondent is continuing the manufacturing of chappals
and accessories relating thereto from the said premises at
308/14, Manish Gali Shahzada Bagh, New Delhi-110035
which business is exclusively owned by the respondent
and the respondent is exclusively carrying out the said
business from the said premises.
V. That after staring his factory of manufacturing chappals
(Slippers) and accessories relating thereto, the
respondent gradually reduced the frequency of coming to
the tenanted premises on account of his finding no spare
time because of his getting totally involved in the business
of manufacturing of Chappals/Slippers and accessories
thereto and about two years back the respondent totally
stopped coming to the tenanted premises and doing any
business therefrom. The respondent accordingly sub-let,
assigned and or otherwise parted with possession of the
whole of the tenanted shop to this brother Sh. Raj Kumar
and his son Sh. Arpit Singhal about two years back.
VI. That Sh. Raj Kumar and his son Sh. Arpit Singhal have
been carrying on business of General store under the
name and style of 'Rajesh Store' from the said tenanted
shop. The said 'Rajesh Store' is also a member of Shastri
Nagar Dukandar Kalyan Samiti (Regtd.) B-1460, Main
/Bazaar Shastri Nagar, Delhi. The tenanted shop has
been in exclusive possession said control of said Sh. Raj
Kumar and his son Sh, Arpit Singhal. Sh. Raj Kumar
along with his son namely Arpit Singhal are carrying on
business from the said tenanted shop. The said shop is
opened and closed everyday by Sh. Raj Kumar and his
son Sh. Arpit Singhal. Seven photographs of the said
tenanted shop alongwith a DVD showing Sh. Raj Kumar
and his son doing business, having sign board of 'Rajesh
Store'he and his son closing/opening the said tenanted
shop and being in complete possession and control
thereof are filed herewith as Annexure-F (colly). That Sh.
Raj Kumar has also taken a godown in property bearing
no.B1373, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110052 which is near to
the tenanted premises where the goods connected with
the business being carried on from the tenanted shop are
stored by him.
VII. That Sh. Raj Kumar has. also been issuing bills under the
name of 'Rajesh Store' bearing his signatures and a copy
of the one of the bills issued to Sh. Ashok Kumar son of
the petitioner bearing signatures of Sh. Raj Kumar is also
filed herewith as Annexure-G.
VIII. That the respondent has been left with no interest or
connection whatsoever with the said business being now
carried on from the tenanted shop which is exclusively
owned by this brother Sh. Raj Kumar and his son Sh.
Arpit Singhal. The respondent is not in possession and
control of the tenanted shop as he has sub-let assigned
and parted with possession of the tenanted premises to
Shr. Raj Kumar and his son Sh. Arpit Singhal. That Sh.
Raj Kumar has been paying rent of the said shop to the
petitioner for the last several years and has been getting
the counter foils of the rent receipts signed from the
respondent on the insistence of the petitioner. Sh. Raj
Kumar has lastly paid the rent for the period ending
31.03.2014 vide receipt dated 19.03.2014. However, the
respondent has refused to sign the counter foils of the
rent receipt dated 19.03.2014 for the period 01.06.2013
to 31.03.2014 on the ground that he has been left with no
concern with the tenanted shop any more. A photocopy of
the rent receipt dated 19.03.2014 is filed as Annexure-
H."
6. The learned Pilot Court (Central) seized of the eviction petition
on having heard the parties and taken into account the evidence led by
either side has observed to the effect that the ownership of the
landlady Smt. Sharda Devi over the premises in question as well as the
existence of landlord- tenant relationship between her and Shri
Rajender Parsad Singhal (arrayed as the present petitioner) was not
disputed which is not disputed even now. The evidence led before the
Pilot Court (Central) brought forth that the landlady had placed on
record the photographs and DVD to show Shri Raj Kumar and his son
opening and closing the premises and sitting and transacting the
business from the same and that the bills issued by Shri Raj Kumar
from the tenanted shop were also proved by the landlady. The Pilot
Court (Central) held that all the documents filed on record showed the
presence of Shri Raj Kumar and his son Arpit Singhal at the tenanted
premises which indicated that Shri Raj Kumar and his son Arpit
Singhal were transacting business from the tenanted premises and
were closing and opening the said premises and none of these
photographs, DVD and documents showed the presence of the
respondent to the eviction petition i.e. the present petitioner in the
premises in question.
7. Though it has been sought to be contended by the present
petitioner that Shri Raj Kumar is his real brother and was working
there only as an employee in the tenanted premises, no record of his
employment, attendance register, salary receipts or appointment letter
were brought forth by the present petitioner before the Pilot Court to
substantiate that he had appointed Shri Raj Kumar as his employee in
the tenanted premises. In fact, Shri Raj Kumar, brother of the
petitioner stated categorically that there was nothing like an employee-
employer relationship between him and Shri Rajender Parsad Singhal
and that he does not take a fixed salary but withdraws as much as he
wants according to his needs from the tenanted shop.
8. The judgment of the learned Pilot Court indicates that Ms. Anju
Johri from the office of the Shastri Nagar Dukandar Kalyan Samiti
(Regd.) was examined as PW2 by the landlady who PW2 brought with
her the receipts issued by the said Samiti in the name of M/s Rajesh
Store as Ex. PW2/1 to Ex. PW2/3 and when Shri Rajender Parsad
Singhal tried to bring forth that his name was mentioned as proprietor
in the said receipts, it was stated by PW2, Anju Johri that the name
of Shri Rajender Parsad as proprietor of M/s Rajesh Store was
added at the instance of Shri Rajender Parsad Singhal who had
visited the office of the said Samiti about a month prior to the date
when this witness entered into the witness box.
9. The learned Pilot Court on a consideration of the evidence led
before it has observed vide para 16 thereof to the effect:
"16. Thus, it was for the respondent to prove as to how
Sh. Raj Kumar came into possession of the premises in
question and how his presence is shown in the premises.
The respondent, however, failed to do so. The only
contention made by the respondent is that since Sh. Raj
Kumar is the real brother of the respondent, he allowed
him to continue business with him in order to help him
financially. However, as per the NOC EX. PW1/2 given by
the LRs of late Sh. Geeta Ram, it is clear that all the Lrs
of late Sh. Geeta Ram including Sh. Raj Kumar, had
surrendered their tenancy rights in the premises in
question in favour of the respondent Sh. Rajinder Parsad
Singhal. That being the case, it was for the respondent to
prove as to how Sh. Raj Kumar came into possession of
the premises in question. The contention of the respondent
that Sh. Raj Kumar is merely assisting the respondent in
his business from the tenanted premises is also not
substantiated by any document. No kaccha receipt has
been filed by the respondent to show that he is also
issuing kaccha receipt in favour of his customers for
transacting the business like Raj Kumar. Further, no
document or account statement has been shown to prove
that Sh. Rajinder Parsad Singhal is doing any work from
the tenanted premises, i.e. sale and purchase of articles
from me said premises. Even, the income tax record filed
by the respondent is not authenticated by any certificate
u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Further, no ITR has
been filed on record to Show that the respondent is the
sole Proprietor. Merely because the sign board of the
tenanted premises is not changed by Sh. Rai Kumar, does
not go on to prove that the respondent is still carrying on
his business from the tenanted premises. The respondent
has failed to prove that he has any control or has
possession over the tenanted premises or that he often
visits the tenanted premises.
17. It is also averred by the petitioner that the respondent
has started his business of manufacturing of slippers, etc.
from property bearing no.308/14, Shahzada Bagh, New
Delhi. Per contra, as per the respondent, the said
premises is under the ownership of his wife and that one
Sh. Vijay Kumar is carrying on his business of
manufacturing Chappals from the said premises. No title
document has been placed on record by the respondent to
substantiate that Smt. Raj bala, i.e. wife of the respondent
is the owner of property no. 308/14, Shahzada Bagh, New
Delhi or that she has let out the said property to one Shri
Vijay Kumar. The contention that Sh. Vijay Kumar is the
tenant with respect to the said property is nowhere
alleged by the respondent in his written statement and it
was for the first time in his affidavit of evidence that the
respondent pleaded this contention. However, the same is
not substantiated by any document and hence, cannot be
relied upon. The best possible evidence could have been
produced by the respondent to show that property bearing
no.308/14, Shahzada Bagh, New Delhi is under the
ownership of his wife or that the same has been let out to
Sh. Vijay Kumar but he failed to do so. Further, no ITR or
registration documents of Gupta Plastic has been filed on
record by the respondent to show that Sh. Vijay Kumar is
running the said business or that Sh. Rajinder Parsad has
nothing to do with the said business. Thus, in absence of
any documentary proof, the respondent had failed to show
that he is not carrying on any business of Gupta Plastic
from property bearing no. 308/14, Shahzada Bagh, New
Delhi or that he is carrying on his business from the
tenanted premises itself. The petitioner, on the other hand,
on the basis of documents placed on record, has clearly
proved that Sh. Raj Kumar and his son Sh. Arpit Singhal
are in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises and
they are solely transacting business from the tenanted
premises. Even the receipts issued by Shastri Nagar
Dukandar Samiti produced by the respondent as
Ex.RW1/2 (colly) do not go on to prove that the
respondent is the sole Proprietor of M/s Rajesh Store.
PW2 who entered into the witness box to prove the
receipts issued by the said Samiti clearly stated before the
Court that Sh. Rajinder Prasad Singhal had visited the
office of the said Samiti and has asked his name to be
mentioned as sole Proprietor without producing any
document to prove the same. Thus, the said conduct of the
respondent clearly shows his malafide intention."
10. The learned Rent Control Tribunal in its impugned judgment
dated 07.01.2019 observed to the effect:
"5. The defence of the tenant is that Raj Kumar is his real
brother and he has kept him as an employee in the tenanted
premises, however, no record of his employment, attendance
register, salary receipts or appointment letter have been
placed on record. RW2 Raj Kumar in his cross-examination
has specifically admitted that he issued vouchers under his
signatures for the business, transacted from the tenanted
premises; he opens and closes the shutter of the shop; he
also admits that he sits at the shop from morning till it is
closed and sometimes his son also visits the shop. He admits
that the electricity bills are paid through the income
generated from the shop. His brother has not shown himself
as proprietor of M/s Rajesh Store m any government
document. He does not receive any salary. His brother has
not shown him as his employee in any document. He
volunteered that there is no relation like employee since the
tenant is his brother. No fix amount is received by him as
salary but normally an amount of Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,000/-
is received by him.
6. RW1 Rajender Prasad Singhal in his cross-examination
stated that he never opened any bank account as proprietor
of M/s Rajesh Store nor did he get the firm registered under
Shops & Establishment Act. M/s Rajesh Store was never
registered with VAT and Sales Tax Department. He had
never issued any appointment letter in favour of Raj Kumar
since he is his real brother; he did not pay fixed salary to
Raj Kumar since very beginning and Sh. Raj Kumar takes
money as per his requirement. He has not shown Raj Kumar
as his employee in any government record. The tenant does
not issue any bill for the items purchased from the shop in
question. Though he volunteered that he issued Kachi
Parchi but he admitted that his brother issued Kachi Parchi
like Ex. PV/1/16 to those customers purchasing items from
the shop. He has not brought or filed any document on
record to prove that he purchased products for M/s Rajesh
Store as a proprietor. He had never made any payment
towards this business of M/s Rajesh Store from his personal
account. He also stated that he did not maintain any Kacha
Chittha for the sale and purchase of M/s Rajesh Store. He
also admitted that he never made any payment of electricity
bill for the shop in question through cheque. He admitted
that electricity bills are with his brother since they reside
together. Surprisingly, he also stated that he cannot state
the turnover of the business of M/s Rajesh Store for a year.
He could not .even state the expenses incurred in purchase
of the products for M/s Rajesh Store. From the evidence of
RW1 &RW2, it is clear that tenant Sh. Rajender Prasad
Singhal does not have any document or evidence in his
possession to show that he sits at the shop in question,
carries on or transacts any business therefrom or that Raj
Kumar is his employee. He even does not have anything to
show that he purchased products for M/s Rajesh Store. He
even does not know about the annual turnover of his alleged
business. He does not pay the electricity bill for M/s Rajesh
Store. Hence, there is not even a single document on record
to show that M/s Rajesh Store is the proprietorship concern
of Mr. Rajender Prasad Singhal. The documents and
evidence on record show that it is Raj Kumar and his son,
who sit at the shop in question and carry out business
therefrom. Documents like ITR documents, documents of
education of the sons of Raj Kumar and another petition
titled Sharda Devi v. Murari Lal have no concern with the
property in question. Hence, the applications for leading
additional evidence are dismissed."
11. The present petitioner i.e. the respondent arrayed to the eviction
petition, the tenant directed to be evicted from the tenanted premises
for having parted with possession of the tenanted premises without
obtaining written consent of the petitioner submits to the effect that
the learned Pilot Court and the learned Rent Control Tribunal had both
misread the evidence led and that they had not taken into account the
original receipts issued by the Shastri Nagar Dukandar Kalyan Samiti
(Regd.) nor the rent receipts issued by Ram Prakash in favour of the
present petitioner for the tenanted godown in property bearing no.B-
1373, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi which was taken for proper
functioning of the tenanted premises and the learned trial Court had
refused to admit the said document in evidence and that the documents
i.e. the registered sale deed of the shop, copy of the ITR (V) and the
computation of total income and Trading and Profit and Loss Account
for the Financial Year 2015-16, AY 2016-17 (Mark A Colly) were not
taken into account by the learned trial Court which de-exhibited the
said documents as well as the challan dated 14.03.2017 Ex. RW1/1
and the registered sale deed of the property bearing no.308/14,
Shahzada Bagh, New Delhi in favour of his wife Smt. Rajbala, counter
foils of rent receipts issued by Smt. Rajbala (Wife of the petitioner) in
favour of Shri Vijay Kumar with respect to property bearing
No.308/14, Shahzada Bagh, New Delhi.
12. The petitioner has further submitted that his brother Shri Raj
Kumar was examined as RW2 and he supported the case of the present
petitioner that the tenanted premises were not sublet or parted by him
i.e. the present petitioner to Raj Kumar and his son Arpit Singhal and
the documents RW2/1, vouchers of salary of RW2 were also not
admitted in evidence by the learned trial Court, which ought to have
been admitted by the learned trial Court. The petitioner further
submitted that even his application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC
filed before the learned Rent Control Tribunal seeking that the rent
receipts issued by Ram Prakash in favour of M/s Rajesh Store
appellant Sh. Rajinder Parsad for the tenanted godown i.e. property
No. B-1373, Shastri Nagar, Delhi for proper functioning of the
tenanted premises which showed that the appellant was the sole
proprietor of M/s Rajesh Store and inter alia Ex RW2/1- salary
vouchers of M/s Rajesh Store which proved that the brother of present
petitioner Sh. Raj Kumar was an employee of M/s Rajesh Store were
not taken into account by the learned trial Court. The present
petitioner has submitted that even the education document of the son
of his brother i.e. of Shri Arpit Singhal which proved that Arpit
Singhal was studying and not doing any business, the copy of the
conversion receipt issued by the MCD in favour of the petitioner
which showed that the petitioner herein was the sole proprietor of
Rajesh Store and the copy of the MCD application form of
shop/commercial establishment which proved that the present
petitioner was the sole proprietor of M/s Rajesh Store and the
photographs which showed that the petitioner was in possession of the
tenanted shop and the certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian
Evidence Act to substantiate the ITR documents filed by the petitioner
which established that the petitioner was the proprietor and doing
business and was in possession of tenanted shop were not taken into
account by the learned Rent Control Tribunal. The petitioner has also
submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, he came to know
that the respondent had filed a petition under section 14(l)(e) Delhi
Rent Control Act titled as Sharda Devi Vs Murari Lal bearing
petition No.556/17 in the Tis Hazari courts, Delhi against the tenant of
another shop situated in the same property where the tenanted shop in
question was situated and came to know that the respondent had
mentioned in the said petition that the petitioner herein was a tenant
and was in possession of the tenanted shop, which itself it was
submitted is a clear cut admission on behalf of the respondent that the
petitioner is a tenant as well as in possession of the tenanted shop and
that the respondent had nowhere mentioned in the said petition that the
petitioner had sublet the tenanted shop.
13. The petitioner submitted that the prayer made by the petitioner
even seeking the placement of the certified copy of the documents
through the petitions bearing No.556/2017 titled as Sharda Devi Vs
Murari Lal under Section 14(l)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act and sought
to be brought as an additional document before the Rent Control
Tribunal was erroneously not allowed. The petitioner further
submitted that in reply to the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
filed by the present petitioner, the respondent before the Rent Control
Tribunal admitted the petitioner to be a tenant and in possession of the
tenanted premises and had not refuted the same and thus could not be
allowed to withdraw his own admission and the admission made by
the respondent herein of the petitioner being a tenant in the tenanted
premises thus operated as an estoppel against the respondent.
14. The petitioner has further submitted that the learned trial Court
and the Rent Control Tribunal had both failed to appreciate that the
ITR, for computation of Income and Trading and P & L Account
wherein it was specifically mentioned that Raj Kumar, his brother is
receiving salary from the present petitioner and the said document i.e.
ITR, Computation of Income and Trading and P & L Account showed
that the petitioner is a proprietor of M/s Rajesh Store even in the year
2016 and that the Rent Control Tribunal and the learned trial Court
had failed to appreciate that the petitioner herein was in possession
and control of tenanted premises. The petitioner submitted that the
respondent had not brought on record anything to establish the
relationship and incident of landlord and a tenant between him
and his brother. The petitioner further submitted that the petitioner
had issued a demand draft in favour of the respondent for the rent of
tenanted premises which was refused by the respondent and thus he
had deposited the rent before the Rent Controller, which aspect was
not taken into account by the Rent Control Tribunal or by the learned
trial Court. The petitioner has further submitted that the said
authorities have not taken into account that the petitioner and Raj
Kumar are real brothers and stay in the same house and that the
respondent has failed to discharge the initial onus put on him that the
third party was in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises let out
for valuable consideration.
15. On a consideration of the entire available record and rival
submissions addressed on behalf of either side, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the
record in the impugned order dated 30.03.2017 of the Pilot Court
(Central District) nor in the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2019 of
the learned RCT (Central) warranting any interference. This is so in as
much as the entire available record speaks eloquently to the effect that
the petitioner who became the sole tenant in the tenanted premises at
B-1437, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi shown in red colour in the site plan
annexed alongwith the petition bearing Eviction Petition No.51/2017
filed in the Pilot Court (Central District) and who had become such
sole tenant after the demise of his father Shri Geeta Ram, the initial
tenant, in view of other legal representatives of Shri Geeta Ram who
expired on 09.02.1991 having given their no objection in writing to
the petitioner becoming the sole tenant in the tenanted premises which
aspect has not been refuted by the petitioner herein and thereafter, the
petitioner started a factory of manufacturing of chappal/ slippers under
the name and style of Gupta Plastic at the premise bearing
No.1337/90, Talaab Road, Tri Nagar, Delhi which factory was shifted
around 2002-03 to premises no.308/14, Manish Gali, Shahzada Bagh,
New Delhi where the petitioner continues to manufacture chappals
and accessories. The record thus substantiates the contention of the
respondent that the petitioner initially reduced his frequency of
coming to the tenanted premises in question and gradually parted with
possession of the whole of the tenanted shop to his brother Raj Kumar
who has been running M/s Rajesh Store from the said tenanted shop
exclusively with the petitioner not even being aware of the annual
turnover of the Rajesh Store being run in the tenanted premises by
Shri Raj Kumar, the real brother of the petitioner.
16. That the petitioner has claimed that his brother is an employee
in M/s Rajesh Store and is not the proprietor thereof; qua which it is
essential to observe that the brother of the petitioner has stated that
there is no relationship of an employee-employer between him and the
petitioner in as much as the petitioner is his brother. Further M/s
Rajesh Store run in the tenanted premises by the petitioner's brother
and by his son is not registered with the VAT and Sales Tax
Department and PW2 Ms. Anju Johri from the office of the Shastri
Nagar Dukandar Kalyan Samiti (Regd.) has categorically testified to
the effect that the receipts in relation to the Rajesh Store which is run
in the tenanted premises, the name of Rajender Parsad being
mentioned as the proprietor therein was added at the instance of the
petitioner who visited the office of the Samiti a month prior to the date
when the witness entered into the witness box; the said testimony of
PW2 itself sets at naught the veracity of the claim of the petitioner that
he has not parted with the possession of the tenanted premises to the
respondent.
17. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the ITR
documents would show that he is the proprietor of M/s Rajesh Store, it
is essential to observe that Section 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act, 1958 (as
amended) provides for the grant of an order or decree for the recovery
of possession of any premise in favour of the landlord against the
tenant where the tenant has on or before 9 th day of June, 1952 sublet,
assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the whole or any part
of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the
landlord thus making it apparent that even if the incidents of a lease
between the petitioner and his brother Raj Kumar are not brought out
by the respondent, the factum of Raj Kumar along with his son
running M/s Rajesh Store in the tenanted premises exclusively to the
exclusion of the petitioner is clearly borne out through the record.
18. As regards the contention raised by the petitioner that the prayer
made by the petitioner seeking to place on record an additional
document with certified copy of the petition bearing No.E-556/2017
titled as Sharda Devi Vs. Murari Lal under Section 14(1)(b) of the
DRC Act, 1958 (as amended) filed by the respondent herein in which
the respondent had admitted that the petitioner was in possession of
the tenanted shop does not suffice itself to indicate that the petitioner
has not parted with the possession of the tenanted shop for apparently
a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 (as amended)
filed by the landlady on the ground of bonafide requirement, would
only necessarily have to show that the landlady has no other suitable
accommodation available with her to meet her needs to fulfil the
parameters of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 (as amended).
19. In the circumstances, the prayer made by the petitioner seeking
to lead additional evidence has been rightly declined by the RCT and
there is no ground whatsoever for interference with the impugned
orders or to remand back the matter to the learned Rent Controller, in
as the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. Rent Controller and the Ld.
Rent Control Tribunal vide their impugned judgments on the basis of
the record is wholly plausible and cannot be faulted with.
20. The petition is dismissed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
MAY 5th, 2020/vm
