Case: Bhairon Sahai (D) Through Lrs Vs. Bishamber Dayal (D) Through Lrs. &amp; Others

The petition filed under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by thefor eviction of the Respondents was allowed by the Rent Controller. The Tribunal set aside the Judgment of the Rent Controller in the appeal filed by the Respondents. The second appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi, aggrieved by which the Appellant has filed the present appeal.2. Respondent No.1 became the tenant of a shop measuring 138 square feet in Karol Bagh, New Delhi after a family partition in the year 1963 on payment of a rent of Rs. 54/per month. The Appellant purchased the premises from its previous owner in the year 1974. The Appellant issued a notice terminating the tenancy on the ground that Respondent No.1 had parted with the possession of the premises without his consent and that he had caused substantial damage to the premises. In the Eviction Petition, the Appellant stated that Respondent No.1 hada part of the premises to Respondent No.2 who was running a ration shop. In the written statement, the Respondents denied the averments made in the Eviction Petition and stated that the ration shop was being run by Respondent No.1, though the licence was in the name of Respondent No.2. It was further stated that in a portion of the premises, Respondent No.1 was having a provision store for selling pulses, rice, tea, oil, ghee, etc. and the other portion was being utilized for a fair price shop. It was also stated that the entire premises was being used as a fair price shop after 01.10.1976 and that Respondent No.2 was taken as a partner by Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 01.01.1977. The Rent Controller held that Respondent No.2 was given a Food Grain Licence in March, 1964 in his own name and that Section 4 of the Delhi Rationing Order, 1964 prohibits any person other than the licensee from running the shop. After examining the provisions of the Delhi Rationing Order, 1964 and after drawing an adverse inference against Respondent No.1 for not producing the relevant records, the Rent Controller held that Respondent No.1 was not running the fair price shop. The Rent Controller also held that Respondent No.2 was running his business as an Authorised Ration Distributor of a fair price shop in the premises. It was further held that Respondent No.1 parted with possession of the shop in favour of Respondent No.2 without the consent of the landlord. The Rent Controller decided the Eviction Petition in favour of the Appellant and directed the Respondents to hand over vacant peaceful possession of the shop to the Appellant within a period of two months.3. The Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi on aof the evidence on record reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and concluded that it was Respondent No.1 and not Respondent No.2 who was carrying on the business of a fair price shop. The High Court confirmed the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal by holding that it had not been proved that Respondent No.2 was in exclusive possession of the suit premises.

Court's reasoning:
8. In the present case, it is clear from the evidence on record and the judgments of the courts below that there has been parting of possession by Respondent No.1 of a portion of the premises in favour of Respondent No.2 without taking the consent of the Appellant. The Rent Controller found that from 1964 onwards, there were two shops being run in the premises. One portion of the premises was being used for a fair price shop, the licence of which was in the name of Respondent No.2. The other portion was being used as a provision store which was being run by Respondent No.1. The averments in the Eviction Petition would disclose that the Appellant alleged parting of possession by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.2 between the years 1964 and 1976. The other allegation is that Respondent No.1 entered into a partnership with Respondent No.2 in 1977. No consent was taken from the Appellant for either parting with possession of a portion of the premises or for entering into a partnership.9. Eviction can be sought by a landlord if the tenant sublets, assigns or otherwise parts with possession without his consent. We are of the opinion that the Rent Controller was right in finding that Respondent No.2 was carrying on the business as Authorised Ration Distributor in a portion of the premises from 1964 as he was the licensee. Parting with the possession of the premises without consent of the landlord was sufficient for eviction of the tenant without getting into the question ofor assignment.10. No consent was sought before the Respondents entered into partnership. This partnership was formed in 1977 after the business of a fair price shop was being carried on from 1964. The Rent Controller held that it is not necessary to decide about the genuineness of the partnership in the Eviction Petition. Even the Appellate Tribunal did not adjudicate on the partnership between the Respondents. The High Court refers to the partnership deed dated 01.01.1977 only for the purpose of holding that Respondent No.2 was permitted to use a portion of the premises but was not given exclusive possession.11. The question whether by entering into a partnership deed dated 01.01.1997, the first Respondentsublet the premisesto the second Respondent does not arise for consideration in this case. Hence, the judgment in Parvinder Singhs case and other judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents are not relevant.