Vaishakhi Ram And Ors vs Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani

3. The appellant no.1 was inducted as a tenant in the year 1956 by the erstwhile owners of the suit shop, viz., Som Nath and Mohinder Nath. He was all along in continuous possession of the suit shop and was conducting the business from the same along with his brother Chunni Lal of Chunni Lal and Sons under the name and style of M/s Mitra Book Depot. The rent receipts issued by the landlord were in the name of M/s Mitra Book Depot as tenant at the rate of Rs.65/- per month. Subsequently, a business was started in a portion of the suit shop in the name of M/s. Mitra Stores and M/s. Lucky Confectioners. In the year 2000, Som Nath and Mohinder Nath sold the suit shop to one Anil Anand. However, the rent of the suit shop was continued to be paid to Som Nath and Mohinder Nath by the appellant no.1 upto the month of September 2000. Thereafter, the rent was deposited by the appellant no.1 in the court in different proceedings. On 20th of October, 2000, Anil Anand sold the suit shop to the respondent by a registered deed of sale. However, the appellant no.1 went on depositing the rent in the name of the original landlord. Finally, on or about 1st of February, 2002, the respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14 [1][b] of the Act on the ground of subletting before the Rent Controller, Delhi. According to the respondent, although the tenancy was given to the appellant no.1 in the name of M/s Mitra Book Depot but subsequently, the appellant no.1 had sublet the suit shop to the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 who were carrying on the business in a portion of the suit shop in the name of M/s Mitra Stores and M/s Lucky Confectioners. Accordingly, the respondent sought for eviction of the appellants on the ground of subletting. A written statement was filed by the appellants denying the material allegations made in the eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller, Delhi by the respondent. After the issues were framed and the evidence was adduced, the Rent Controller held on facts that the appellant No.1 had sublet a portion of the suit shop in which the business in the name of M/s Mitra Stores and M/s Lucky Confectioners was carried on by the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and, therefore, the appellants were liable to be evicted under Section 14 [1][b] of the Act. The Rent Controller passed the order of eviction by holding, inter alia, that the case of subletting was duly proved as from the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, it was clear that an independent business was run by the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 and that they were in exclusive possession of a portion of the suit shop. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, which also dismissed the same by affirming the findings of the Rent Controller. Against this order of the Rent Control Tribunal, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi and the High Court by the impugned judgment also dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court, the instant special leave petition has been filed, in respect of which leave has already been granted.

9. The three courts concurrently held on facts that the appellant No.1 had no exclusive possession in a part of the suit shop where the appellant Nos. 2 to 4 had been carrying on their separate independent business.

14. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this appeal and the appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are given time to vacate the suit shop by 30th of June, 2008 subject to filing of usual undertaking before this Court within a period of four weeks from this date. There will be no order as to costs.