Case: Prem Prakash Vs. Santosh Kumar Jain

a) Shri Santosh Kumar JainRespondent No. 1 herein filed an application for increase of standard rent and eviction of tenant being Eviction Petition No. 956 of 2007 before the Rent Controller, Delhi under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short `the DRC Act) on the ground that the premises in question, i.e., Shop No. 16 (Private No. 15), Gali Kunjas, Ward No. IV, Dariba Kalan, Delhi 110 006 has beenassigned and otherwise parted with possession illegally by the originalappellant herein to hisNo. 2 herein, who is in the unauthorized occupation of the same and is carrying on his own independent business and also that the originalappellant herein is in arrears of rent from 01.01.2002.(b) Learned Additional Rent Controller, North Delhi, vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2011 in E.No. 02/2009 dismissed the claim of eviction while directing the appellant herein to deposit the rent as agreed for preceding 3 (three) years from the date of filing of the eviction petition.(c) Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2011, Respondent No. 1 went in appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The Rent Control Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 24.03.2014 indismissed the appeal.(d) TheNo. 1 herein, aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 08.09.2011 and 24.03.2014, filed a petition being C.M. (M) No. 478 of 2014 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2014, allowed the petition filed by theNo. 1 herein.(e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.11.2014, the appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.Heard Mr. Braj K. Mishra, learned counsel for theand Ms. Bharati Tyagi, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and Mr. Satish Kumar Jainthe original owner, Respondent No. 1 herein, argued in person.

Court's reasoning:
12. A bare perusal of the visiting card of M/s Ashima Jewellery having the name of Respondent No. 2 clearly proves that thewas neither an employee nor was looking after the customers of the appellant herein in his absence but he was carrying on his personal business under such name. There is no point in denying the fact that why a tenant will allow a person, who is working under him, to print visiting cards in hisname for the property in question.13. Further, the other visiting card is having the name of "M/s R.R. Jewellers". The allegedhas denied the claim in the affidavit filed before the courts below that earlier he was doing the business in the name and style of M/s R.R. Jewellers. Thehas brought on record the list of subscribers issued by the Delhi Sanchaar Sewa (Pvt.) Ltd. wherein for R.R. Jewellers, the address mentioned is that of the suit property and the phone number is exactly the same as mentioned on the business card of M/s Aashima Jewellery" i.e., `3901361. Respondent No. 2 has admitted the fact of doing business in the name of M/s Aashima Jewellery" which is also evident from the business card used by him having the address of the suit property and the telephone number `3901361 whereas he denied to have worked under the name and style of M/s R.R. Jewellers but the very fact is falsified by the evidence in the form of subscribers list of Delhi Sanchaar Sewa wherein the same telephone number, i.e., `3901361 has been given. Meaning thereby, Respondent No. 2 was doing business in the suit premises independently of the appellant herein.14. Undoubtedly, the initial burden to prove that theis in exclusive possession of the property is on the owner, however, the onus to prove the exclusive possession of the sub tenant is that of preponderance of probability only and he has to prove the same prima facie only and if he succeeds then the burden to rebut the same lies on the tenant.In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the originalNo. 1 herein has proved beyond doubt that the property is in exclusive possession of theand the appellant herein has not been able to deny the claim ofin favour of Respondent No. 2. The absence of evidence and failure to discharge the onus lay heavy on appellant and there could be no presumption other than that the suit premises had been sublet and parted with possession by the appellant herein to the Respondent No. 2.