Kuljeet Singh v. M/S S.T.S.Enterprises

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. JULY 20, 2017 Bs..

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 20th July, 2017. + KULJEET SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Savita Malhotra and Ms. Suman Malhotra, Advs. Versus S.T.S.ENTERPRISES ..... Respondent Through: Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Adv. for Mr. S.C. Singhal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment (dated 2nd January, 2014 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in ARCT No.11/2013) allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent/tenant against the order (dated 22nd December, 2012 of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in E No. 137/2011) of eviction of the respondent/tenant from second floor of property No.B-17, Block - B, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi in a petition for eviction filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. 2. Vide the impugned order, the ARCT has allowed the appeal of the respondent/tenant and set aside the order of eviction. 3. This petition was entertained and notice thereof issued and Trial Court record requisitioned. 4. The counsel for the petitioner/landlord has been heard. Mr. S.C. Singhal, counsel for the respondent/tenant has not appeared and Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate who appears on his behalf has not argued anything. The record of the Trial Court has been perused. 5. The petitioner/landlord instituted the petition for eviction pleading that the premises were let out on 17th January, 1984 to the respondent/tenant M/s S.T.S. Enterprises but the respondent/tenant in or about the year 2002 sublet, assigned and/or parted with possession of the whole of the tenancy premises to S.T.S. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a newly formed company having a distinct entity under the law and altogether a different person having different directors other than the original partners of the respondent/tenant M/s S.T.S. Enterprises and the said S.T.S. Eneterpirse Pvt. Ltd. was in possession of the tenancy premises. 6. The respondent/tenant contested the petition for eviction inter alia pleading (i) that S.T.S. was the sole proprietorship of Sukhvinder Singh; (ii) that the said Sukhvinder Singh was also the Managing Director of S.T.S. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was at E-32, Navada Housing Complex, opposite Kakrola Mod, New Delhi; and, (iv) denying that the tenancy premises had been sublet, assigned or parted with possession of. 7. The learned ARC, on the basis of the evidence led before him, passed an order of eviction reasoning (a) that it had been proved that S.T.S Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. had been running and operating from the tenanted premises between 2002-2007, till it shifted to E-32, Navada Housing Complex; (b) that it had further been proved that the only two directors of S.T.S. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. were Sukhwinder Singh holding 89,000 equity share and Gurpreet Rai wife of Sukhwinder Singh holding 21,000 equity shares and that there were no other directors or shareholders of S.T.S. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.; (c) that though it has been held in several judgments that when an individual takes a premises on rent and then converts his sole proprietorship concern into a private limited company in which he has controlling interest, it would not amount to parting with possession but in the present case, at the time of inception of the tenancy, there were two partners of S.T.S. Enterprises i.e. the aforesaid Sukhwinder Singh and Shashi Gupta; on the death of Shashi Gupta, Sukhwinder Singh became the sole proprietor of S.T.S. Enterprises; (d) that the tenant S.T.S. Enterprises had not come before the Court with clean hands and had denied that S.T.S Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. was having its registered office at the address of the tenancy premises, when it was proved in evidence that S.T.S. Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. indeed had its registered office in the tenancy premises till it was shifted in the year 2007; (e) that the res