Panna Lal Vs. Satish Kumar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 14(1)--eviction--bonafide requirement--subletting--arc held need of respondent not bonafide and not a case of subletting--appealed against rct set aside finding of arc and held it was a case of subletting--decree of eviction granted--appealed against--findings of tribunal not sustainable--order set-aside--appeal disposed. - - prabha wati appearing as her own witness as rw-13 clearly stated that she along with her husband was the tenant, though in the rent receipt the name of her husband had only been shown. even otherwise chander shekhar appearing as rw-12 clearly stated that he was in the premises in question since 1939 as sub-tenant. panna lal appearing as pw-18 corroborated the testimony of these appellants as well as testimony of chander shekhar and smt. prabha wati, chander shekhar, panna lal and of other appellants clearly show that they were in occupation of the premises much prior to 9th june, 1952. the finding of the learned tribunal, thereforee, cannot be sustained.usha mehra, j. (1) common question of law has been raised in all the three appeals arising out of a common judgment. since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, thereforee, these are taken up together and disposed of by one order. (2) briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals are that shri satish kumar and others respondents herein filed eviction petition against the present appellants on three grounds, namely (i) bonafide requirement; (ii) sub-letting and finally (iii) for misuse of the premises in question. the respondents landlord/owner gave up the ground of misuse before the additional rent controller (in short arc). respondents restricted the grounds of eviction against the appellants only on two counts, namely (i) bonafide requirement and of sub-letting. the learned arc basing his conclusion on the evidence placed on record held that the need of the respondents herein was not bonafide. on appeal being preferred the learned rent control tribunal (in short the tribunal) confirmed this finding of the learned arc. the arc on the second count held that it was not a case of sub-letting and declined to grant decree of eviction in favor of respondent herein. however, in appeal the learned tribunal set aside this finding of the learned arc and held that it was a case of sub-letting and granted decree of eviction. thus there is concurrent finding of both the courts below regarding the need of the landlord to be not bonafide. the reason for deciding this issue against the respondents was that they had already acquired additional accommodation adjacent to the house in question. taking into consideration the additional accommodation it was held that he had sufficient accommodation with him to accommodate his family. that finding has not been assailed before me. the only finding which is under attack is whether the tribunal could reverse the finding of the learned additional rent controller on the ground of subletting?. (3) the facts leading to the averments of sub-letting were that one panna lal became a tenant of shri banarsi dass in the year 1934-35. at that time he was permitted to re-let the premises for and on behalf of owner/landlord banarsi dass. that panna lal had been sub-letting the premises on behalf of the landlord as his thekedar. the present appellants were also inducted as tenants in the premises in question by the said panna lal. respondents raised the objection that panna lal being tenant could not sub-let the premises without landlord's consent as the sub-letting had taken place after 9th june, 1952. thus the only point in issue was whether sub-letting had taken place prior to 9th june, 1952 or thereafter. if after 9th june, 1952 then whether panna lal obtained consent of the landlord for sub-letting the premises to the present appellants. panna lal and other sub-tenants against whom eviction was sought appeared as their own witnesses as pw-12 to pw-18. they testified that they were inducted as sub-tenants in the premises in question by panna lal much before 9th june, 1952. the learned arc on the basis of this evidence concluded that there was no case of sub-letting. panna lal was authorised to let out the premises. written consent was not required as the sub-letting was prior to 9th june, 1952. (4) in appeal the tribunal reversed this finding by dealing only with the case of smt.prabha wati appellant no.1 in sao no.129/81. finding of the learned arc was reversed by the learned tribunal mainly on the ground that chander shekhar husband of smt.prabha wati appearing as his own witness admitted that he was occupying the premises since 1939 whereas it was the case of the parties that prabha wati was the sub-tenant. hence no reliance could be placed on the testimony of chander shekhar as the sub-tenancy of smt.prabha wati started after june, 1952. grievance of the appellant is that the tribunal has not dealt with the case of each individual sub-tenant. even the evidence adduced in the case of smt.prabha wati has not been properly appreciated. smt.prabha wati appearing as her own witness as rw-13 clearly stated that she along with her husband was the tenant, though in the rent receipt the name of her husband had only been shown. that no separate rent receipt was issued in her favour. panna lal used to receive rent receipt in the joint name i.e. of her and her husband from the landlord. but in turn he used to issue the receipt in the name of her husband only. on this part of her statement there was no cross examination. even otherwise chander shekhar appearing as rw-12 clearly stated that he was in the premises in question since 1939 as sub-tenant. he started his business of publishing his magazine from this premises way back in 1946. he also testified that he had taken permission from the erstwhile owner banarsi dass to run his business from this premises subject to the condition that the property would not be damaged. the letter received in this regard granting him permission to run business had been proved on record as ex.rw-11/1 and declaration as ex.pw-11/2. he further testified that other sub-tenants were also in occupation of this premises much prior to his sub-tenancy. when subjected to cross examination he confirmed that his wife was residing with him and that he took the premises from panna lal. this part of his testimony remained unassailed. it fully establishes that he along with his wife had been residing in the premises in question prior to 9th june, 1952, this testimony fortified by the testimony of his wife proves their case that the sub-tenant of the premises in question was not created after june, 1952. the rent was paid to panna lal. panna lal appearing as pw-18 corroborated the testimony of these appellants as well as testimony of chander shekhar and smt.prabha wati. that they were inducted sub-tenants prior to 9th june, 1952. respondents herein could not prove by any cogent evidence that these appellants were inducted after june, 1952. hence there was no question of obtaining any written consent of the landlord. (5) in this view of the matter, to my mind, the tribunal fell in error in concluding that chander shekhar or smt.prabha wati were inducted as sub-tenant after june, 1952. in fact the testimony of smt.prabha wati, chander shekhar, panna lal and of other appellants clearly show that they were in occupation of the premises much prior to 9th june, 1952. the finding of the learned tribunal, thereforee, cannot be sustained. the same is accordingly set aside. (6) with these observations, the appeals stand disposed.