Amir Chand Manchanda v. Tejinder Pal Singh

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated

12.10.2011 which has been passed by the Additional Rent Contfol Tribunal (ARCT) affmning the findings retumed by the Additional Rent Conti'oller (ARC) dated 09.04.2009 whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14 (l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) had been decreed in his favour. The ground under Section 14 (l)(j) had failed.

Record shows that the respondent has filed this eviction petition qua a shop bearing No. 1046/9 fonning part of property bearing No. 1046, Gali No.9, Gobind Puri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. He is admittedly the owner/landlord of the said property. The premises had been tenanted out to Amir Chand Manchanda in his individual capacity. Ground of subletting had been averred in the eviction petition. It had been stated Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. that the original tenant has sublet/parted with possession of the suit property in favoui" of 'Vishal Footweai'' of whom the sole proprietor was his son Vishal. This was in the year 1997.

Written statement was filed. Needless to state that the petition was hotly contested. The respondent/landlord Tejinder Pal Singh had come into the witness box as PW-1. He had on oath reiterated the aveiinents made in the petition. In para 4 of his affidavit, he has specified that the original tenant has paited with possession of the premises in favour of 'Vishal Footwear' which is running an independent business from there; photographs of the said shop had been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/10 substantiating these avennents. Further submission being that Vishal was the sole proprietor of 'Vishal Footwear' and a bank account maintained by Vishal as proprietor of 'Vishal Footwear' in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi had also been filed on record to substantiate this argument. PW-1 was not cross-examined inspite of oppoitunity having been granted to hun. Testimony of PW-1 thus remained unrebutted. PW-2 an official fi^om the Oriental Bank of Commerce had proved the aforenoted account opening foim.

RW-1 i.e. the tenant had also come into the witness box. His submission was that he was running 'Vishal Footwear' as his proprietor and Vishal is his son. Certain portions of his cross-examination are relevant. He has admitted that the bank account of 'Vishal Footwear-' was opened in the name of his son Vishal as proprietor of 'Vishal Footwear'. He denied the suggestion that there is no subletting. It is this D cumulative evidence which has weighed in the mind of the trial Court to arrive at a finding that a case of sub-letting is made out. Not only the version of PW-1 (landlord) which has remained umebutted but even the admissions made by the tenant in his cross-examination had persuaded the Court to arrive at the aforenoted findings. This was the fact fmding returned by the Court below. Eviction petition had accordingly been decreed in favour of the landlord. The RCT vide the unpugned order had endorsed these fact findings. The Court had noted that it is not the case of the tenant that he is running 'Vishal Footwear-' as its sole proprietor. His submission that he was the sole proprietor of 'Vishal Footwear' has been negatived by Ex. PW-2/1. A twofold ai'gument has been addressed before this Court. The first submission is that there is no avennent in the petition that the premises had been sublet by the original tenant in favour of the sub tenant for any consideration; in the absence of this, there cannot be a valid sub-letting. The second submission is based on the premise that there is also no avennent in the pleadings that the possession of the premises had been delivered to the sub-tenant and in the absence of which again a case of subletting cannot be made out. The aiguments of the petitioner are wholly frivolous. Testunony of PW-1 has clearly specified that the premises had been sub-let to 'Vishal Footwear' of whom the sole propr-ietor was Vishal which position also stands admitted by RW-1 in his cross-examination. It is also not the case of the tenant that 'Vishal Footwear' is not caiTying on the business from the aforenoted premises; his argument is that he is the proprietor of 'Vishal Footwear' which submission has been rejected by the two comfs below. These aie fact findings retumed by the two fact finding foiiuns below. This Comt is sitting in its powers of supeiintendence. Interference is called for in the orders of the subordinate fomm only if there is a patent illegality or a manifest error apparent on the face of the record which is clearly not so in the instant case. Evidence both oral and documentary has been construed in the coixect perspective. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the right of second appeal has been abrogated from the DRCA. This Court has also been infoimed that the premises has since been delivered to the respondent who has taken possession of the same on 09.11.2011. This fact has been mentioned in the present petition itself. In this factual scenario the impugned order calls for no interference. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed. EVDERMEET KAUR, J. MAY 22, 2013 A

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment:22.05.2013 ■+ CM(M) 61/2012 . AMIR CHAND MANCHANDA Petitioner Thi-Qugh Ml". R.S. Shaiina, Adv. versus TEJINDER PAL SINGH Respondent Through Mi'. Sanjay Goswami, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR