Case: Krishnawati Vs. Hans Raj

2. On or about September 10, 1959 the respondent landlord let out the premises in suit to the appellant on a rent of Rs. 125/- per month. The premises consisted of a shown. On 1-9-1962 the respondent applied under Section 14 of the above Act to the Rent Controller, Delhi for evicting the appellant on the ground that she had sub-let the entire premises to one Sohan Singh who, according to the respondent, was running a business under the name of Royal Dispensing Chemist of Druggist in the shop. It was further alleged that the appellant was charging a fabulous amount as rent from her sub-tenant Sohan Singh. The appellant in her written statement admitted the tenancy but denied sub-letting. She alleged that Sohan Singh was her husband and from the time of the lease the business of a Chemist was being run there in the premises by her husband and she also occasionally helped him in the running of the business3. The Rent Controller was of the view that the appellant was the legally wedded wife of Sohan Singh. In any event, he held, Sohan Singh and the appellant were living together as husband and wife and, therefore, there was no question of any sub-letting by the appellant of the premises. That finding was confirmed in appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. Aggrieved by the decision, the respondent went in second appeal to the High Court under Section 39 (1) of the Act. It was contended before the court by the respondent that two substantial questions of law and fact were involved in the appeal - one relating to the status of the appellant as wife and the other whether on the facts found the ground of sub-letting had been established. The learned single Judge agreed that the appeal involved substantial questions of law as submitted, and came to the conclusion that there was sub-letting in favour of Sohan Singh. Accordingly, he gave an order for evicting the appellant. So this appeal by special-leave.

Court's reasoning:
Under sub-section (4) referred to above the premises could be deemed to have been sub-let by the tenant only when the Controller is satisfied that some person is let into possession ostensibly as a partner in business but really for the purposes of sub-letting. These provisions evidently have no application to the facts of the present case.It is not the case of anybody that the appellant was the owner of the business carried on in the premises and she had let in Sohan Singh into possession ostensibly as a partner in their business. The learned Judge was, therefore, in error in relying on the provisions of the Act for presuming that the appellant must have sub-let the premisesThe question is whether that evidence gives rise to the factual inference that the appellant had sub-let the premises to Sohan Singh. The first two courts held that it did not. This was a concurrent finding of fact and it seems to us that the learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that the High Court in second appeal should not have interfered with that finding especially when Section 39 (2) of the Act provides that no appeal shall lie to the High Court unless the appeal involved some substantial question of law7. The learned single Judge thought that two substantial questions of law were involved - one relating to the status of the appellants as the alleged wife of Sohan Singh and the second whether on the facts found, sub-letting was established. Both these question involved, according to the learned Judge, substantial questions of mixed fact and law8. As to the first question whether the appellant was legally married, that was a question on which no finding was necessary in an eviction suit. It was sufficient for the Rent Court to proceed on the finding that the appellant and Sohan Singh were living as husband and wife, whether they were legally married or not. This was specifically pointed out by the Additional Rent Controller in his judgment. As regards the second question, one does not see how it is a mixed question of law and fact. In the determination of a question of fact no application of any principle of law is required in finding either the basic facts or arriving at the ultimate conclusion, in a mixed question of law and fact the ultimate conclusion has to be drawn by applying principles of law to basic findingsThe basic facts in the present case were (1) the appellant and Sohan Singh were living as husband and wife to the knowledge of the respondent; (2) the appellant took the lease of the shop premises from the respondent in 1959; (3) from the time of the letting a Chemists business was carried on in the shop by Sohan Singh with the occasional help of the appellant. The question to be determined was whether in the above circumstances it was likely that the appellant had sub-let the premises to Sohan Singh. The negative answer given to it by the Rent Courts is merely the factual commonsense inference which did not call for the application of any principle of law. In our view, no question, of law - much less a substantial question of law - was involved in the second appeal and the learned Judge was in error in disturbing the concurrent finding of the fact of the rent control authorities.