Delhi District Court
M/S Angira Hansraj Gupta Charitable ... vs Raminder Kumar Aggarwal on 17 April, 2018
In the Court of Sh. Puneet Pahwa : Additional Rent Controller-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
E-295/17/13
New No. 79202/16
In the matter of:
M/s Angira Hansraj Gupta Charitable Trust
Through its Trustee Sh. Mahender Gupta & Smt.
Kirti Seth Both Trustees,
20, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi. ................... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Raminder Kumar Aggarwal
2. Narender Kumar Aggarwal
Both S/o Sh. Hari Har Nath Aggarwal
R/o 13/290, Nai Ki Mandi, Agra U.P.
Also At:-
4014, 2nd Floor Charakwalan,
Raguganj, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. ................ Respondents
Date of Institution : 12.12.2013
Date of Arguments: 13.12.2017
Date of Judgment : 17.04.2018
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1) (b) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
E-295/17/13 M/s Angira Hansraj Gupta Charitable Trust Vs Raminder Kr. Aggarwal & Anr. 1/5
JUDGMENT:
1. This is an application under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 59 of 1958') made by petitioner against the respondents for recovery of possession of premises i.e. Ward No.6, Premises no. 4014, 2nd Floor Charakwalan, Raghuganj, Chawri Bazar, Delhi more specifically shown red in the site plan annexed with the application.
2. As per the contents of the petition, the premises were let out for residential purposes, however, the respondents had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the tenancy premises to M/s Abhipra Capital Ltd without the permission and consent of the landlord and the premises is now being used for commercial purposes.
3. The application of eviction is contested by the respondent by filing of written statement of defence stating that the sole ground taken in the present petition upon which the claim of relief of eviction of premises is that of sub-letting by the respondents. The said sub-letting is stated to have been given effect in favour of Abhipra Capital Pvt. Ltd. It has been alleged that the respondents are carrying on the business of share trading as a Franchisee of one Abhipra Management Services Pvt. Ltd under a written agreement of 01.10.05. The respondents have neither sub-let nor parted with the possession of the demised premises in any manner.
E-295/17/13 M/s Angira Hansraj Gupta Charitable Trust Vs Raminder Kr. Aggarwal & Anr. 2/5
4. Replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondents, wherein the averments made in the application for eviction have been reiterated and the defence taken by the respondents in their Written Statement is traversed.
5. In support of its case, the petitioner got examined Sh. Sant Singh (PW-1). The (PW1) during his examination-in-chief, tendered his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. PW1 relied upon various documents i.e. PW1/1 to PW1/3, Mark A to J. PW-1 was were cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent and thereafter, evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed on 02.12.2016.
6. It is pertinent to mention that respondents did not lead any evidence in this petition and RE was closed vide order dated 09.08.2017.
7. Although, grounds of non-payment of rent, mis-use and substantial damage to the demised premises have also been taken by the petitioner in his petition yet no evidence has been lead by the petitioner to that effect.
8. Now, so far as the issue of sub-letting or parting with the possession of the suit premises is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it has been pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent had assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the suit premises.
9. In the W/S, the said pleadings of the petitioner are denied by the respondents. To prove his case the petitioner has examined only one witness namely Sh. Sant Singh who has re-iterated the contents of the petition in his evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that in the E-295/17/13 M/s Angira Hansraj Gupta Charitable Trust Vs Raminder Kr. Aggarwal & Anr. 3/5 petition as well as in the cross-examination it has been very categorically stated that one written agreement was executed between the parties. However, no such agreement was ever placed on record by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him. The witness has also stated that the petition trust used to issue rent receipts in respect of all rent received despite that no rent receipt was filed on record. The documents being relied upon by the petitioner to prove sub-letting are just print outs and photocopies of documents which were never produced in original and thus it can be said that the petitioner has failed to prove those documents as provided under Evidence Act. Moreover, the documents pertain to one Sh. Tarun Kumar Sarkar who was never examined as a witness. In fact PW1 had admitted that Sh. Tarun Kumar Sarkar was known to the petitioner. Therefore, genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner is doubtful. Moreover, the documents produced by the petitioner are not conclusive enough to show that the respondents have sub-let or parted with the possession so as to attract Section 14 (1) (b) DRC Act.
The onus to prove the sub-letting was upon the petitioner and the petitioner has measurably failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to establish factum of sub-letting by the respondents.
It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. V/s HC Sharma & Ors. AR 1988 SC 145 that for sub- letting there must be parting of the legal possession and the parting of the legal possession means-possession with the right to include and also to E-295/17/13 M/s Angira Hansraj Gupta Charitable Trust Vs Raminder Kr. Aggarwal & Anr. 4/5 exclude other.
10. On the basis of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the petitioner has failed to prove that the respondents have sub- let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the suit premises without the written consent of the petitioner to M/s Abhipra Capital Ltd. The petitioner has further failed to place on record any rent receipt for payment of rent by the said sub-tenant to the respondent to prove sub- tenancy or any other document to show that the respondents have parted with the possession of the demised premises.
In view of above discussion, the petition filed u/s 14 (1) (b) DRC Act is dismissed accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date: 2018.04.18
16:37:09 +0530
Announced in the open court (Puneet Pahwa)
on this 17th April, 2018 Additional Rent Controller-02
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
E-295/17/13 M/s Angira Hansraj Gupta Charitable Trust Vs Raminder Kr. Aggarwal & Anr. 5/5