Delhi District Court
Sh. Yash Pal vs Smt. Neelam Kesar on 4 July, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No: 25282/16
Sh. Yash Pal,
S/o Sh. Ami Chand,
R/o 6/64A, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi. ....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Smt. Neelam Kesar,
W/o Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kesar
2. Sh. Chirag Kesar,
S/o Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kesar
Both R/o 6/64A, Moti Nagar,
New Delhi. ...respondents
Date of Filing : 02.04.2013
Date of Judgment : 04.07.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 02.04.2013, the petitioner filed a petition Under Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one shop in property no. 6/64A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the property bearing No. 6/64A, Moti Nagar, ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 1 /18 New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'suit property') wherein the respondents are tenant in respect of one shop on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. That initially one Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kesar was inducted as a tenant by petitioner in respect of one shop in property bearing no. 6/64A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi on a monthly rent of Rs.400/-. Sh. Ashwani Kumar expired on 21.04.2009 leaving behind the respondents i.e. his wife and son, who became tenants in respect of the tenanted premises under the petitioner by operation of law on the same terms and conditions as applicable to the tenancy of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kesar. That the tenanted premises is more specifically shown in red in the site plan. That tenancy of the respondents starts on the first day of English calendar month and ends on the last day of the same month. That the respondents have recently sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the tenanted premises without obtaining the written consent of the petitioner to one Sh. Salim, who is running a barber shop under the name and style of M/s Salim Barber shop and is in possession of the tenanted premises. He is also paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m. to the respondents as rent of the tenanted premises. The respondents are no longer in possession of the tenanted premises and order of eviction deserves to be passed against them. Lastly, it is prayed that an order of eviction may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises.
3. Written Statement was filed by the respondents in response to the petition filed by the petitioner U/S 14 (1) (b) of D.R.C Act praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with costs.
ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 2 /18In Written Statement, the respondents inter-alia took the preliminary objections that the respondents have not sublet the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises is in possession and in control of the respondents. The petitioner has neither impleaded the alleged sub-lettee as necessary party to this petition, nor the petitioner has disclosed the details of the alleged sub-lettee. The petitioner has also not disclosed any specific date, time or period regarding the alleged sub-letting of the tenanted premises. That one Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta was previously a tenant in the tenanted premises, who handed over the possession of the tenanted premises to Sh. Aswani Kumar, husband of the respondent no.1 and father of the respondent no.2 under a written agreement dated 17.03.1996 against the consideration of Rs. 1,75,000/- and the agreement dated 17.03.1996 is also duly signed by the petitioner Sh. Yashpal as a witness. Thus, Sh. Ashwani Kumar got the possession of the same from Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta with the consent of the petitioner. Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta also executed and signed the proper receipt dated 17.03.1996 and 24.08.1996 against the amount received by him from Sh. Ashwani Kumar. That there was no rent agreement between the petitioner and Sh. Ashwani Kumar. The agreement was executed only between Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta and Sh. Ashwani Kumar. However, Sh. Ashwani Kumar was paying rent to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 400/- p.m. That later on, Sh. Ashwani Kumar entered into a partnership with one Sh. Saleem son of Sh. Rashid and a "Barbar shop" was opened in the tenanted premises under the name and style of "Saleem Barber Shop" under the said partnership. As per the partnership deed dated 15.05.1997 Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Sh. Saleem had 50% share each in the ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 3 /18 profits generated from the said business. The above said partnership was extended from time to time and the last partnership deed was executed on 15.05.1999. That Sh. Saleem is working in the shop on behalf of the respondents under their control and supervision. Sh. Ashwani Kumar was paying rent till he was alive and after his death, the petitioner has not asked the respondents to pay the rent in respect of the tenanted premises. That the petitioner was fully aware about the partnership between Sh. Ashwani Kumar and Sh. Saleem since the year 1997 but he never raised any objection in this regard. That the summons issued from this Court were also served on the respondents at the address of the tenanted premises which is the clear proof of the fact that the respondents are in actual possession of the tenanted premises. That Sh. Saleem is neither a sub-lettee nor a sub-tenant and he is working in the tenanted premises under the control and supervision of the respondents. That after the death of Sh. Ashwani Kumar on 23.04.2009 the petitioner never asked the respondents to pay the rent in respect of the tenanted premises. That the respondents will pay all the arrears of rent as may be lawfully payable to the petitioner in respect of the tenanted premises.
4. Record reveals that the replication was filed by the petitioner in which the petitioner has reiterated and reasserted his stand taken in the petition and he has further submitted that the impleadment of sub-tenant is not necessary under any law. The sub-lettee has no status in the tenanted premises. The alleged partnership deed dated 15.05.1997 has been manipulated to hide sub-letting. That the respondents are tying to hide sub-letting behind the partnership. That the alleged ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 4 /18 partnership deed and especially the note in the hand writing of Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar clearly show that it was sub-letting and not partnership. The service of summons at the address of tenanted premises does not prove that the respondents are in actual possession of the tenanted premises. The sub-letting is continuing during the lifetime of late Sh. Ashwani Kumar and now under the respondents. The respondents have no control over the tenanted premises which is in the exclusive possession of Sh. Saleem, who is paying a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m. to the respondents as rent. Lastly, it is prayed that eviction order may be passed.
5. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for petitioner's Evidence. The petitioner Sh. Yashpal examined himself as PW-1 to prove his case. PW-1 relied upon the documents which are exhibited from Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3. PW-1 was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for respondents. Thereafter, evidence of the petitioner was closed on 14.11.2017.
6. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for respondent's evidence. Ms. Neelam Kesar was examined as RW-1 and she was cross examined at length. Thereafter, respondents' evidence was closed on 06.05.2019.
7. I have heard the arguments at length advanced by Ld. counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents and I have also gone through the relevant case law relied upon and I have carefully gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses, documents and material on record.
ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 5 /188. Landlordship:-
Perusal of record shows that the landlordship of the petitioner is undisputed as the respondents have admitted in paragraph no. 5 of written statement itself that Sh. Ashwani Kr. Kesar was paying rent to the petitioner @ Rs. 400/- per month. As such, there exists the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Section 14 (1) (b) sub-letting:-
9. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(b) of DRC Act which is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
(b) That the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord".ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 6 /18
10. As per Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 14 (1)(b) D.R.C. Act is one of the grounds entitling landlord to get the order of eviction against the tenant. It is well settled that subletting is not absolutely prohibited by the law or by the Delhi Rent Control Act but the subletting should be with the consent of landlord and such consent should be in writing. Section 14 (1)(b) clearly lays down that eviction may take place even when the tenant has parted with the possession of whole or part of the premises. In view of provision of law, the landlord is required to prove following essential conditions:-
(i) The tenant sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises. i.e. the sub tenant was in exclusive possession of property or part of the property.
(ii). No consent in writing was taken from the landlord by the tenant.
11. It is well settled that exclusive possession means the possession to the exclusion of others and it includes not only the physical possession but also the legal possession. It is also clear that parting with possession means giving possession to persons other than those to whom possession was assigned by the lessee and parting with possession must have been by the tenant.
It is also settled that mere use by other persons is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself. Subletting takes place only when there divesting of physical possession as well as of the right to possession. In other words, there must be vesting of ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 7 /18 possession by the tenant in other person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession. So long as the tenant keeps the control with him, it can not be said that sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of premises and in such situation the case does not fall within Section 14 (1)(b) D.R.C. Act.
The divestment or abandonment of the right to possession is always necessary to invoke the clause of parting with possession.
12. In the case titled as Vaishakhi Ram & Others Vs Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani 2008, 14 SCC, it was held as under:-
"21. It is well settled that the burden of proving subletting is on the landlord but if the landlord proves that the subtenant is in exclusive possession of the suit premises, then the onus is shifted to the tenant to prove that it was not a case of subletting."
It is well settled that initial burden to prove that sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the suit property is on the owner/landlord. However, the onus to prove the exclusive possession of the subtenant 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 case titled as Associated Hotels of India Limited Delhi Vs. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, 1968, AIR (SC) 933, it was held that when eviction is sought on the ground of subletting, this onus to prove subletting is on the landlord. If the landlord prima facie shows that the occupant who was in exclusive possession of the premises let out for valuable ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 8 /18 consideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence.
In the case titled as Kala and another Vs. Madho Parshad Vaidya, 1998, 6 SCC, 573; the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the very same principle observing that the burden of proof of subletting is on the landlord but once he establishes parting of possession by the tenant to third party, the onus would shift on the tenant to explain his possession. If he is unable to discharge that onus, it is permissible for the court to raise an inference that such possession was for monetary consideration.
In the case titled as Prem Parkash Vs. Santosh Kumar Jain & Sons and another, 2017, law suit (SC) 872, the relevant para is as under:-
"18. sub-tenancy or subletting comes into existence when the tenant gives a possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession of that person, instead of the tenant which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person in possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the subtenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet, had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sublease. It may be paid in cash or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump sum in advance ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 9 /18 covering the period for which the premises is let out or sublet or it may have been paid or promised to have been paid periodically. Since payment of rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the fact of the case."
In the case titled as Munshi Ram Vs Bhoj Ram through LRs in C.M. (M) No.1612/2010 and C.M. No.8004/2005, wherein it was observed as under:
"It is well settled that to make out a case for subletting or parting with possession, it means giving a possession to persons other than those to whom the possession had been given by the original lessor and that parted with possession must have been made by the tenant. The word 'subletting' necessarily means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of the third party."
In the case titled as Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. Vs H.C. Sharma, 1988, 1 (SCC) 70, the Hon'ble Apex Court noted that to constitute a subletting, there must be a parting with a legal possession and whether in a particular case, there was subletting or not, was a question of fact.
It is well settled that to establish the aforesaid ingredients, the landlord must establish that tenant had completely divested himself of the suit premises and parted with possession of the suit premises of the whole or part of the premises to the sub- tenants and this should be substantiated by the evidence.
In the case titled as Praveen Saini Vs Reetu Kapur & Anr. 246 (2018) DLT 709, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi inter- alia observed as under:-
"On the aspect of admissions being binding, this Court would like to straightaway refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagindas Ramdas Vs Dalpatram Ichharam alias ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 10 /18 Brijram & Others, 1973 (SLT Soft) 15 (1974) 1 SCC 242, because in this judgment the Supreme Court has laid down the ratio that evidentiary admissions are different than judicial admissions. Supreme Court has held that admissions which are made in judicial proceedings are on a higher pedestal than evidentiary admissions made in the form of correspondence etc and that judicial admissions can be a basis in themselves for deciding the claim. The relevant para 27 of the judgment in the case of Nagindas Ramdas (supra) read as under:-
"27. From a conspectus of the cases cited at the bar the principle that emerges is that if at the time of the passing of the decree, there was some material before the court, on the basis of which the court could be prima facie satisfied, about the existence of a statutory ground for eviction, it will be presumed that the Court was so satisfied and the decree for eviction apparently passed on the basis of a compromise, would be valid. Such material may take the shape either of evidence recorded or produced in the case or, it may partly or wholly be in the shape of an express or implied admission made in the compromise agreement itself. Admissions if true and clear are by far the best proof of the facts admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admission admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admission. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties. On the other hand evidentiary admissions which are receivable at the rivalas evidence are by themselves not conclusive. They can be shown to be wrong."
In the case titled as Sukhpal Singh & Anr. Vs Satbir Singh & Anr. 296 Capital Law Judgment 2012 (4), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inter-alia observed as under:-
"4. It is important to note that the onus of proving sub-tenancy lies on the landlord. 0The Supreme Court in "Jagan Nath Vs Chander Bhdn, AIR 1988 SC 1362", enunciated the principles whereby once the landlord has proved that a particular portion of the demised premises has been given in exclusive possession to a stranger, then the onus shifts upon the tenant."ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 11 /18
In the case titled as Padam Chand Jain Vs Messrs Mahabir Pershad & Sons and another, S.A.O. No.464 of 1968, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court inter-alia observed as under:-
"It is now settled by the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Kedar Nath and another Vs Smt. Mohini Devi, etc. that the initial burden lies upon the landlord to establish that any of the conditions mentioned in the clauses (a) to (e) of the proviso exists (vide at page 170-I of the report)."
13. Keeping in view, the aforementioned principles of law and observations made by the Hon'ble Superior Courts, I have carefully gone through the entire testimonies of all the witnesses from the petitioner's side and respondents' side and also all the relevant documents filed on record and I have also heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels and I have also gone through carefully the case law relied upon.
14. Lets discuss the 1st ingedients:-
(i). The tenant sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises. i.e. the sub tenant was in exclusive possession of property or part of the property.
15. Perusal of record shows that the case of the petitioner is that respondents have sub-let the tenanted premises to one Mr. Salim @ Rs. 10,000/- per month who is running a barbar shop in the tenanted premises without written consent of the petitioner.
ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 12 /18On the contrary, the respondents have claimed that the tenanted premises is still in the possession and control of the respondents. Further claim of the respondents is that Late Sh. Ashwani Kumar (husband of the respondent no. 1 and father of respondent no. 2) got the tenanted premises from one Sh. Vijay Kr. Gupta with the consent of the petitioner. It is further claimed that Sh. Vijay Kr. Gupta also executed and signed the proper receipt dated 17.03.1996 and 24.08.1996 against the amount receipt Rs. 1,75,000/- from him.
The claim of the respondents is that an agreement was executed between Sh. Vijay Kr. Gupta and Sh. Ashwani Kr. Kesar. However, Sh. Ashwani Kumar Kesar was paying rent to the petitioner @ Rs. 400/- per month. Later on, Sh. Ashwani Kr. Kesar entered into a partnership with Sh. Saleem and a Barbar shop was opened in the tenanted premises in 1997 and last partnership deed was executed on 15.05.1999 and on the death of Sh. Ashwani Kr. Kesar on 23.04.2009, partnership came to an end and Sh. Saleem alone is working in the tenanted premises on behalf of the respondents under their control and supervision.
The case of the respondents is that petitioner was fully aware about the partnership between Sh. Ashwani and Sh. Saleem in 1997 but he never raised objections.
16. Perusal of record shows that the landlordship of the petitioner is undisputed as the respondents have admitted in paragraph no. 5 of written statement itself that Sh. Ashawni Kr. Kesar was paying rent to the petitioner @ Rs. 400/- per month. Moreover, it is also undisputed fact that the tenanted premises is in the physical possession of Sh. Saleem and the ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 13 /18 respondents have themselves admitted in paragraph No. 6 of W.S. that Sh. Saleem is working in the tenanted premises on behalf of them under their control and supervision.
As such, perusal of record manifestly shows that the petitioner has been able to prove the prima facie case that someone else is in possession of the tenanted premises.
The case of the respondents is that Sh. Saleem is working on their behalf and he is under their control and supervision. As such, the onus is on the respondents to prove that legal possession is with them and not with Sh. Saleem.
I have carefully sctrutinized the testimonies of all the witnesses and I have also perused the documents on record carefully placed by both the parties.
It is relevant to reproduce the relevant portion of evidence of RW-1 Smt. Neelam Kesar which is as under:
"The shop is being run in the name and style of M/s Saleem Barbar Shop. The main Barbar in the shop is Mr. Saleem. From the very beginning the shop is being run and managed by Sh. Saleem. Earlier, the shop was in partnership between Sh. Saleem and my husband. Earlier, Sh. Saleem used to pay money to my husband. (Vol. After the death of my husband we are paying salary to Sh. Saleem). We are paying Rs. 10,000/- per month as salary to Sh. Saleem. We do not obtain receipts of the salary paid to Sh. Saleem. The brother of Saleem is also working in the shop but I do not know his name. We do not pay anything to brother of Saleem. I do not regularly sit in the shop. (Vol. Once or twice in a week I visit the shop.). The daily collection is taken by Sh. Saleem, who pays the same to me once or twice in a week. The average monthly collection of the shop is about Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 20,000/- per month. The shop is opened and closed by Sh. Saleem only. I do not maintain any account of the salary paid to Sh. Saleem. It is wrong to suggest that the shop is in possession of Sh. Saleem. It is correct that Sh. Saleem opens the shop in morning and closes the same at 10:00 p.m. Sh. Saleem keeps keys with him.....
.....The relations with Saleem are very cordial and even we have family visiting terms with him.....ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 14 /18
..... It is wrong to suggest that my daughter in law does not purchase the material and for the said reason, I am not able to give details. It is wrong to suggest that Saleem is not my employee and for this reason, I do not have receipts for the salary paid. I do not have any account in the bank in respect of the affairs of this Barbar Shop....
....It is correct that Ex. RW-1/10, & RW-1/11 do not bear my signatures. It is correct that the partnership deed were not executed in my presence but I have knowledge about them from my husband."
17. Persual of testimony of respondent/RW-1 Smt. Neelam Kesar manifestly shows that the respondents are not in legal possession of the tenanted premises. Although the respondents have claimed that Sh. Saleem is working on their behalf under their control and supervision, yet RW-1 has herself admitted during the cross examinatiion that shop is being run in the name and style of M/s Saleem Barbar shop and main barber is Sh. Saleem in the tenanted premises/shop. Furthermore, the respondent/ RW-1 has claimed that they are paying the salary of Rs. 10,000/- to Sh. Saleem for his work. But it is surprising that the tenanted premises is being run in the name of employee instead of owner i.e. M/s Saleem Barbar Shop. Furthermore, although respondents have claimed that Sh. Saleem is their employee in the Barbar shop but she has not been able to place even a single document to support that salary is being paid to Sh. Saleem. RW-1 has also admitted the possession of key of the tenanted premises of the shop with Sh. Saleem. It is also admitted by the respondent that the shop is being opened and closed by Sh. Saleem.
Although RW-1/respondent has cliamed during the cross examination that material of shop is being purchased by her daughter in law but she herself has admitted that she does not ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 15 /18 have bills for such purchase. She has also admitted that she does not have any account in the bank regarding affairs of the barbar shop.
Record shows that respondents have not placed on record even a single document which shows that Sh. Saleem is working under their control and supervision. During the cross examination RW-1/ respondent has herself deposed that she visits the barbar shop only once in a week or twice a week, which shows that there is no supervision of the respondent over Sh. Saleem.
It is strange that on the one side respondents have claimed during the cross examination that Sh. Saleem is her employee and being paid salary but on the other side, respondents do not know even the name of other employee who is working in the shop along with Sh. Saleem.
18. As such, the entire testimony of respondent/RW-1 manifestly shows that the respondents are not having the legal possession of the tenanted premises. Moreover, as observed earlier, the physical possession over the shop is with Sh. Saleem and it is undisputed fact and respondent has herself admitted that Sh. Saleem is in the physical possession of the tenanted premises. Moreover, during the cross examination also, it is proved that respondents are neither in legal possession nor in physical possession of the tenanted premises. As such, the petitioner has been able to satisfy this ingredient of 14(1)(b) of D.R.C. Act.
ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 16 /18(ii). Consent in writing by the landlord:-
19. Perusal of record shows that respondents have not claimed that consent was given by the petitioner in respect of subletting by the respondent to Sh. Saleem. The respondent has merely claimed that petitioner was fully aware about the partnership of Sh. Ashwani Kr. and Sh. Saleem since 1997 but he never raised any objections.
As such, the respondent has not claimed that a consent in writing was given by the petitioner to the respondent or Sh. Ashwani Kr. Kesar for subletting. No document has been placed on record which shows that consent was given in writing by the petitioner to the respondent or Sh. Ashwani Kr. Kesar.
As such, it is proved on record that no consent in writing was given by the petitioner. Hence, this ingredient in respect of not taking the consent in writing has also been satisfied by the petitioner.
CONCLUSION:-
20. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, testimonies of all the witnesses from both the sides, sub- missions made by the Learned Counsels for the parties, well settled proposition of law and material on record, I am of the considered view that the ingredients of 14(1)(b) D.R.C. Act are satisfied by the petitioner and consequently, an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. one shop in property no. 6/64A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1.
ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 17 /1821. File be consigned to Record Room after due compli- ance.
Digitally signed Announced in the open court AJAY by AJAY NAGAR Date: on 4th July, 2019 NAGAR 2019.07.04 16:46:54 +0530 (This judgment contains 18 pages) (AJAY NAGAR) Additional Rent Controller, West District, THC, Delhi. ARC No. 25282/16 Yash Pal Vs Neelam Kesar & Anr. Page 18 /18