Delhi District Court
Smt. Kamlesh Rani vs Sh. Roop Chand on 16 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. YOGESH KHANNA
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTHWEST)
ROOM NO. 401 : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
ARCT No. 08/12
1. Smt. Kamlesh Rani
w/o Late Narender Singh
2. Sh. Manish Saini
s/o Late Narender Singh
3. Ms. Ekta Saini
d/o Late Narender Singh
All r/o : K31/20, Mohan Park
Model Town - III, Delhi. ........Appellants
Vs.
Sh. Roop Chand
s/o Late Keshav Ram
r/o H. No. 349, Block No. 11
3rd Floor, Garhi, Lajpat Nagar
New Delhi ..........Respondent
Date of institution : 16.01.2012
Date of hearing arguments : 06.02.2016
Date of Judgment : 16.02.2016
JUDGMENT
1. This Judgment shall govern the disposal of an appeal filed by the appellants u/s 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, against the Judgment dated 09.12.2011 passed by the Ld. Addl. Rent Controller (N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in an eviction petition bearing E. No. ARCT No. 08/12 Page 1 of 19 15/09/99 whereby the Ld. Trial Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent (petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court) seeking relief u/s 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act.
2. The brief facts which are germane for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent/petitioner had filed a petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act against the appellants alleging therein that he is the owner/landlord of the premises/shop no. A1106, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, and had let out half portion of the ground floor platform with half portion of the basement of the impugned premises/shop to the husband of appellant no. 1 in the year 1982.
It is pertinent to mention here that initially the eviction petition was filed against Sh. Narender Singh, but during course of the proceedings Sh. Narender Singh had died and hence, appellants nos. 1 to 3 herein and Smt. Sheetal Saini, Sh. Uday Singh Saini and Ms. Bela Saini, were impleaded as the respondents, before the Ld. Trial Court being the legal heirs of late Narender Singh.
It is further alleged that the last paid rent by late Narender Singh was Rs. 1600/ per month, excluding electricity charges. It is further alleged that Sh. Narender Singh (since deceased) i.e. husband of appellant no. 1 and father of appellant nos. 2 & 3 had sub let, assigned and parted with the possession of the impugned premises to one Sh. Rajinder Kumar in the month of November 1998 without any written consent of the respondent/petitioner and now the sub tenant Sh. Rajinder Kumar is in use and possession of the tenanted premises. It is further alleged that Sh. Narender Singh used to charge Rs. 3000/ per month, as rent, from Sh. Rajinder Kumar and that he was running ARCT No. 08/12 Page 2 of 19 his own business of patato and onion commission agent at A296, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, in the name and style of M/s Kanhaiya Lal Umrao Singh. It is further alleged that Sh. Narender Singh paid the rent upto February 1999 and thereafter had sub let the tenanted premises to Sh. Rajinder Kumar, as discussed herein above and that Sh. Narender Singh is in arrears of rent since March 1999.
On these allegations, the respondent/petitioner filed an eviction petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act against Sh. Narender Singh (since deceased) praying to pass an eviction order in respect of the impugned premises.
3. Sh. Narender Singh had filed a written statement to the said eviction petition before the learned trial court wherein he had raised a preliminary objection that the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/respondent is not maintainable in its present form as he is tenant in respect of one pher and godown in property bearing no. A 1106, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, whereas the petition has been filed in respect of the half portion of the tenanted premises and the respondent/petitioner cannot seek partial eviction.
The relationship between the respondent/petitioner and Sh. Narender Singh as of landlord and tenant was admitted. The rate of rent was also admitted, but the sub letting was denied by Sh. Narender Singh. It is further alleged in the written statement that Sh. Narender Singh is in legal, actual and physical possession of the impugned premises and is running the business of booking of goods from the impugned premises through transport under the name and style of M/s Royal U.P. Assam Roadlines with the help of his ARCT No. 08/12 Page 3 of 19 employees including Sh. Rajinder Kumar. It is further alleged in the written statement Sh. Rajinder has no concern with the impugned premises as he is only an employee of Sh. Narender Singh and works under the control of Sh. Narender Singh at the impugned premises at a monthly salary of Rs. 1700/.
4. Sh. Tikam Dass, an attorney of the respondent herein had appeared in the witness box as AW1 and proved various documents on the record i.e. Ex. AW1/1 viz. the Spl. Power of Attorney in his favour; Ex. AW1/2 viz. the site plan and Ex. AW1/3 viz. the certified copies of the statement of the parties alongwith an order dated 04.05.2001 in a petition u/s 45 of the DRC Act. During his cross examination, AW1 deposed that Sh. Roop Chand i.e. the respondent/petitioner is his brother in law and is residing in Garhi, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, and had given him the attorney to depose. AW1 also deposed on the merits of the case.
On the other hand, Smt. Kamlesh Saini i.e. the wife of deceased Narender Singh/appellant no. 1 herein appeared in the witness box as RW1 and proved the death certificate of her husband, late Narender Singh as Ex. RW1/1 and a site plan as Ex. AW1/R1. During her cross examination, RW1 deposed that the terms of tenancy were not settled in her presence. RW1 admitted that half of the electricity bill was payable by the respondent/owner and half by her late husband Narender Singh. RW1 further deposed that she can produce the document to show her late husband was a Proprietor of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines. However, no such document was filed on the record by RW1. She further deposed that she does not know if her ARCT No. 08/12 Page 4 of 19 husband was an income tax payee. RW1 admitted that she is not having any document to show that her husband was doing the business even after November 1998.
5. Vide an Order dated 15.01.2005, the eviction petition was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court on the ground that the original owner i.e. the petitioner, though was hale and hearty and was very much present in Delhi, did not come into the witness box and has rather deposed through an attorney. However, such order dated 15.01.2015 was challenged before the Ld. ARCT and vide Order dated 16.09.2006, the Ld. ARCT had set aside the order dated 15.01.2005 of the Ld. Trial Court and remanded the case back with a direction to take additional evidence on behalf of the respondent herein in respect of the attorney and for recording the evidence of the appellant herein on the point that Sh. Rajinder Singh was an employee of the respondent/petitioner by permitting her to file the documents in this regard.
As per the directions of the Ld. ARCT vide its order dated 16.09.2006 as discussed herein above, the respondent herein examined himself as AW2 and filed his affidavit Ex. AW2/A in evidence wherein he stated that he had authorized Sh. Tikam Dass i.e. his brother in law to represent him in the present case vide Spl. Power of Attorney dated 14.02.2002 Ex. AW1/1 as Sh. Tikam Dass had been dealing with the deceased respondent i.e. Narender Singh and after his death, he was dealing with the present respondents, in respect of the shop in question. The Spl. Power of Attorney Ex. AW1/1 was ratified and affirmed by AW2 and he deposed that Sh. Tikam Dass ARCT No. 08/12 Page 5 of 19 was competent to depose on his behalf.
Smt. Kamlesh Rani, the appellant herein had also filed her additional affidavit Ex. RW1/A in evidence as per the directions of the Ld. ARCT vide its order dated 16.09.2006, as discussed herein above, and brought the original bahikhata viz accounts of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines showing the payment of salary to Sh. Rajender Singh @ Rs. 1700/ per month, which is Ex. RW1/2. The payment of salary to Sh. Rajender Singh has been allegedly shown at points A, B & C in Ex. RW1/2, but RW1could not depose that the said bahikhata pertains to which period or was prepared by whom. Even it does not bear any stamp/name of the firm to which it belongs. RW1, however, admitted that the said bahikhata was not prepared in her presence. RW1, however, added that the said bahikhata is in the hand writing of her husband. RW1 further deposed that she has only Ex. RW1/2 with her and it was discovered by her after the death of her husband in the year 2001. RW1 further deposed that her husband was having his business at A296, New Subzi Mandi, under the name and style of M/s Kanhaiya Lal Umrao Singh and that her husband died on 13.07.2001. RW1 further deposed that after the death of her husband, she used to lookafter the business of M/s UP Roadlines with the help of munim Radhey Shyam.
The said Sh. Radhey Shyam appeared in the witness box as RW3 on behalf of the appellant/respondent and filed his affidavit in evidence wherein he stated that he had joined the employment of Sh. Narender Singh in the year 1981 as a munim (accountant) and has been maintaining the accounts of M/s Kanhaiya Lal Umrao Singh.
ARCT No. 08/12 Page 6 of 19RW3 further deposed that Rajender Singh had joined the employment of Sh. Narender Singh in his presence in March 1993 as a peon at a monthly salary of Rs. 300/ and continued working as a peon till June 1993 and that from 01.07.1995, he started working as a dealing clerk and his salary was increased from Rs. 300/ per month and then to Rs. 1700/ per month in his presence. RW3 further deposed that Sh. Narender Singh was the Proprietor of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines and he continued to be the Proprietor of the same unit till 13.07.2001 and after his death, his legal heirs became the owner of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines. RW3 further deposed that Rajender Singh worked with M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines till June 2002 and thereafter he stopped working there. RW3 further deposed that after the death of Narender Singh, he started looking after the accounts of the said firm, but he does not know as to whether M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines has been paying income tax or not. RW3 further deposed that, however, M/s Kanhaiya Lal Umrao Singh is an income tax payee and that the salary of Rajender Singh is not shown in the accounts of M/s Kanhaiya Lal Umrao Singh.
6. On the basis of the above evidence, the Ld. ARC (N/W) had passed the Judgment in favour of the respondent/petitioner holding that the sub tenancy stood proved, hence, the appellants/respondents be evicted from the impugned premises.
I have also gone through the record of the Ld. Trial Court. It is an admitted fact that Sh. Narender Singh was a tenant in the impugned premises and even the rate of rent is also admitted. It is also an admitted fact that Sh. Narender Singh expired on 13.07.2001.
ARCT No. 08/12 Page 7 of 19It is also admitted by the appellants that Rajender Singh was working with them in the impugned premises as an employee and the dispute is qua his capacity in which he is holding such possession. The respondent herein has alleged that Rajender Singh is a sub tenant having full control and possession over the tenanted premises, whereas the appellants herein have argued that Rajender Singh is merely their employee.
Before coming to the impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial court, let me first of all look at the most crucial objections raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants.
The first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that AW1 Sh. Tikam Dass was not a competent witness, the petition being filed by the respondent herein and the fact as to if the appellant was charging Rs. 3000/ per month from the said tenant namely Rajender was in his exclusive personal knowledge and as such, he ought to have appeared in the witness box as AW1 to depose on merits of the petition. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that since Tikas Dass was not having the personal knowledge about the tenancy or sub tenancy, so his evidence ought not to be read and as such, the petition ought to have been dismissed as without any evidence.
The learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to "Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2005) 2 SCC 217" wherein it was held that the power of attorney holder cannot act as a witness on behalf of the principal to represent the principal and that deposing in witness box and been cross ARCT No. 08/12 Page 8 of 19 examined is a personal act and cannot be done through an agent/power of attorney holder. It was further held that Order III Rule 1 & 2 CPC confines only in respect of the acts done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. Terms 'acts' would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some 'acts' in pursuance of power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter of which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross examined.
Hence, it is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since the principal/respondent herein had filed the petition u/s 14(1)
(b) of the Act, he ought to have appeared in the witness box and ought to have deposed on merits and not through his attorney.
I am not inclined to accept this arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants, firstly because it has also come in the cross examination of Tikas Dass (AW1) that the respondent herein had been residing in Hapur, UP, since beginning and had shifted to Garhi in the year around 199899 and that he had never resided at any other place at Delhi except Garhi, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. Admittedly, the premises in question was given on rent in the year 1982 when the respondent herein was, admittedly, not in Delhi and was residing at Hapur, UP. More so, the respondent herein ultimately appeared in the witness box as AW2 and had proved his affidavit in ARCT No. 08/12 Page 9 of 19 evidence Ex. AW2/A, wherein he has specifically mentioned that Sh. Tikam Dass, an attorney, has been dealing with the tenant in respect of the shop in question from the date of letting and has been maintaining/looking after and dealing with the legal heirs of Narender Singh in all respects and hence, was fully conversant with the facts of the case and for this reason he had given an attorney to him.
Hence, in his affidavit Ex. AW2/A, the respondent herein had given a green signal to Tikam Dass to depose on his behalf since Tikas Dass has been dealing with the tenant since beginning. The respondent herein rectified the acts done by his attorney Tikas Dass during the course of the trial. Though the learned Counsel for the appellants argued that this portion of the deposition of the respondent herein that Tikas Dass was maintaining and dealing with the appellants, was beyond his pleadings and hence, cannot be looked into, but the fact remains that the appellants did not cross examine the respondent herein (AW2) either on this aspect or on merits to find out as to if the respondent herein was deposing falsely in this regard.
Moreso I may refer to "Man Kaur (dead) by LRs. vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 512", wherein after examining various cases, including the one cited by the appellant viz. Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down the following position as to who should give evidence in regard to the matter involving personal knowledge. The said law is described here as under :
"(a) An attorney holder who has signed the plaint ARCT No. 08/12 Page 10 of 19 and instituted the suit, but has no personal knowledge of the transaction can only give formal evidence about the validity of the power of attorney and the filing of the suit;
(b) If the attorney holder has done any act or handled any transactions, in pursuance of the power of attorney granted by the principal, he may be examined as a witness to prove those acts or transactions. If the attorney holder alone has personal knowledge of such acts and transactions and not the principal, the attorney holder shall be examined, if those acts and transactions have to be proved;
(c) The attorney holder cannot depose or give evidence in place of his principal for the acts done by the principal or transactions or dealings of the principal, of which principal alone has personal knowledge;
(d) Whether the principal at no point of time had personally handled or dealt with or participated in the transaction and has no personal knowledge of the transaction, and where the entire transaction has been handled by an attorney holder, necessarily the attorney holder alone can give evidence in regard to the transaction. This frequently happens in case of principals carrying on business through authorized managers/attorney holders or persons residing abroad managing their affairs through their attorney holders;
(e) Where the entire transaction has been conducted through a particular attorney holder, the principal has to examine that attorney holder to prove the transaction, and not a different or subsequent attorney holder.
Thus admittedly Sh. Tikas Dass is a family member of the respondent herein and has been dealing with the tenanted premises right from the beginning as the respondent herein was residing at ARCT No. 08/12 Page 11 of 19 Hapur, UP, and had only returned to Delhi 45 years prior to the year 2003 when he gave his evidence. Hence, Tikas Dass, being the real brother in law, dealing with his tenants, was a competent witness and as such, this contention of the appellants stands rejected.
The second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is qua partial tenancy. It is alleged that the respondent herein had proved his site plan Ex. AW1/2, but whereas the appellants had also filed their own site plan Ex. AW1/R1. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that AW1 i.e. Tikas Dass, an attorney of the respondent herein, had admitted their site plan Ex. AW1/R1 showing full pher and basement and hence, the petition filed for half pher and half basement suffers from partial evidence and as such, it ought to have dismissed by the learned trial court.
The learned Counsel for the appellants has also taken me to the record of another eviction petition bearing no. 770/06 filed by the respondent herein u/s 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act against the appellants herein wherein the respondent herein has also admitted the site plan Ex. AW1/R1, in his cross examination.
Before coming to this contention let me first examine the relevant portion of the deposition of AW1 Sh. Tikam Dass in this regard. The same is reproduced as under :
"The site plan Ex. AW1/R1 is of the premises in dispute and is correct. Volunteered, but it is of the full property. It is incorrect that earlier tenant Narender was a tenant of complete pher and the basement/godown. Volunteered, he was tenant of half pher and half basement. It is incorrect that I am deposing falsely that Narender was a tenant of half portion. It is incorrect ARCT No. 08/12 Page 12 of 19 that the site plan Ex. AW1/2 is not correct and according to site".
The above deposition of AW1 prove that the tenanted premises shown in the petition is correct as only half pher and half basement was given. The learned Counsel for the appellants intends to take advantage of slip of tongue of the attorney Tikam Dass as also of the respondent herein qua the extent of the premises.
Admittedly, pher/basement has no lock as it is open space. Now if pher/basement is open then the question of its extent, hardly has any importance. More so, the tenant is aware of the premises for which the eviction is filed, hence, no prejudice shall be caused to him if there exist any discrepancy in the petition in showing the extent of premises and it may be conveniently ignored so long as the tenant knows his premises. Here I may refer to "Daya Singh vs. Bhagwan Singh, reported in 1976 RLR 539", wherein it was observed that :
"it is a settled law that a liberal construction should be put upon a notice to quit in order that it should not be defeated by inaccuracies either in the description of the premises or in the name of the tenant or the date of the expiry of the notice and that the test of its sufficiency was not what its contents would mean to a stranger ignorant of all the fats and circumstances touching the premises to which the notice purported to refer, but what they would mean to tenants presumably conversant with all those facts and circumstances and the mistakes should not be construed with a desire to find faults".
More so, it is an admitted fact that a compromise was entered into between the parties in a petition u/s 45 of the DRC Act for ARCT No. 08/12 Page 13 of 19 restoration of the electricity supply wherein the tenant had agreed to pay half of the electricity charges as per the bills levied by the concerned authorities. The learned trial court rightly observed that if the appellants were in possession of the entire premises, then why did they agree to pay only half of such charges, obviously because they were in possession of only half of the pher and half of the basement.
The learned Counsel for the appellants now raised his third contention that Sh. Narender Singh had shown himself to be a Proprietor of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines in his petition u/s 45 of the Act which petition was settled and it shows Sh. Narender Singh in occupation of the premises.
I disagree, as in the settlement Ex. AW1/3 itself, it is mentioned by the respondent herein that this settlement is without prejudice to his rights and contentions taken in the eviction petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act. Hence, the contention that the eviction petition is bad for partial eviction needs to be rejected.
Fourth contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that though the respondent herein has alleged that the tenant was charging a sum of Rs. 3000/ per month from his sub tenant Rajender so he ought to have produced some positive evidence, which he has miserably failed to do and hence, no case of sub letting is made out. Further it is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the respondent herein has never alleged in his petition that the sub tenant Rajender was in exclusive possession of the premises. Heard.
Now it was always the case of the respondent herein that the ARCT No. 08/12 Page 14 of 19 premises was sub let to Rajender who is in control of the premises, as the petition dated 24.12.99 specifically mentions that the tenant has sub let, assigned and parted with the possession of the tenancy premises to Rajender in the month of November 1998 and that the sub tenant is in use and occupation of the tenanted premises and running his business from there.
It was further alleged in the petition that the tenant has been running his own business of potato and onion commission agent at A 296, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi, in the name and style of M/s Kanhaiya Lal Umrao Singh. It was further alleged that the tenant is neither in possession of the suit premises nor has any control over it.
Thus the pleadings itself show that the exclusive possession was with the sub tenant Rajender. More so, the possession of said Rajender has been admitted in the written statement, but it was alleged by the tenant that Rajender was his employee. Now qua the factum of charging rent by tenant from a subtenant I intend to refer to "M/s Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1998, SC 1240, wherein it is held that :
"To prove subletting, production of affirmative evidence showing payment of monetary consideration by sub tenant to the tenant is not necessary. Inference as to subletting can be drawn from proof of delivery of exclusive possession of the premises by tenant to sub tenant. Sub tenancy or subletting comes into existence when tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation wholly or in part and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about ARCT No. 08/12 Page 15 of 19 mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and person to whom possession is so delivered. In this process, landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather scene is enacted behind the bank of the landlord, concealing overact and transferring possession to a person who is utter stranger to the landlord ...."
A bare perusal of the Judgment cited above would guide us that affirmative evidence showing payment of monetary consideration by sub tenant to the tenant is not at all necessary. Inference as to subletting can be drawn from proof of delivery of exclusive possession of the premises by tenant to sub tenant. Admittedly, the premises, in question, is not the one which could be locked as it is half pher and half basement. Further admittedly Rajender was working in the premises though it is alleged that he was in occupation of the premises in the capacity of an employee of Narender Singh/tenant. Now admittedly the best evidence in this regard was to be produced by the appellant herein. Now let us analyse the evidence given by appellants in this regard.
RW3 Sh. Radhey Shyam, a munim (accountant) of the tenant Narender Singh, deposed that he had joined the employment of Narender Singh in the year 1981 and has been maintaining the accounts of M/s Kanhiya Lal Umrao Singh; that Rajender had joined the employment of Narender Singh, in his presence, in March 1993 as a peon at a monthly salary of Rs. 300/; that Narender Singh was a proprietor of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines till 13.07.2011 and after the death of Narender Singh, his legal heirs became the owners of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines. During his cross examination, RW3 ARCT No. 08/12 Page 16 of 19 deposed that earlier Narender Singh used to look after the accounts of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines but after the death of Narender Singh, he started looking after the account of the said firm. RW3 further stated that he does not know as to whether M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines had been paying income tax.
Now if RW3 Radhey Shyam was looking after the accounts of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines, he ought to have produced some documents pertaining to the said firm. Though a bahikhata was produced by RW1 but it was not shown to RW3 and he never deposed such bahikhata was in the handwriting of late Narender Singh. More so, if Narender Singh had kept RW3 as his munim, who used to prepare his accounts, then why only this bahikhata was prepared by Narender Singh, in his alleged handwriting. More so, if late Narender Singh was incharge of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines and if RW3 was his accountant/munim then why they did not file a single document viz. booking receipt /slip etc. concerning the business of said firm. Neither the appellants nor RW3 Radhey Shyam had filed any such document.
Moreso bahikhata Ex. RW1/2, though filed later, but the appellant (RW1) has admitted that she neither prepared the said bahikhata nor the same was prepared in her presence. It rather shows that the appellant was never involved in the business of M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines. Though in the said bahikhata Ex. RW1/2 at some places the salary of one Rajender Singh is mentioned, but said bahikhata does not even bear the name/stamp of the firm to which it belong. I have already raised my apprehension qua its genuineness ARCT No. 08/12 Page 17 of 19 since there is doubt if it is in handwriting of Narender Singh. It was even not put to RW3, when admittedly he was an accountant of the firm. Hence, there is a genuine apprehension if Ex. RW1/2 belong to M/s Royal UP Assam Roadlines or to some other firm, as even besides this bahikhata Ex. RW1/2, no other document was produced by the appellants to support it. Thus, the learned trial court rightly relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported as 2007 RLR 173, wherein it is held that :
"If in a case of alleged subletting tenant says that alleged subtenants were his employees and were shown as such in his registers and accounts books, then for non production of these, adverse presumption could be raised against the tenant. He must also produce income tax records and the account books to prove these assertions"
Thus, neither any authentic document was ever produced nor such employee viz. Rajender was ever brought in the witness box as he was the best available evidence with the tenants and his non production do raise adverse presumption against the tenant.
Thus, the learned trial court was right in holding that Rajender was a sub tenant and not a mere employee of the appellant. What else could the respondent prove when appellant no. 1 even denied the Permanent Account No. ABAPS4299 of her husband late Narender Singh i.e. the earlier tenant. Thus to my mind, the impugned order dated 09.12.2011 suffers from no illegality.
Hence, in view of the above discussions, I do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld. Trial Court. I see no substance in this appeal as nothing material could be pointed out ARCT No. 08/12 Page 18 of 19 against the impugned judgment from the contentions of the appellant.
In the result, I hold that this appeal is devoid of any merits, and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Record of the Trial Court be returned along with an attested copy of the Judgment passed today. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completing the necessary formalities.
Announced in the open Court today 16th day of February, 2016 (YOGESH KHANNA) Distt. & Sessions Judge (NorthWest) Rohini Courts, Delhi ARCT No. 08/12 Page 19 of 19