Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Admittedly, the shops had been originally let out to Smt. Nirmala Mago, for commercial purpose on a monthly rental of Rs. 1000/- for both shops. The tenant Smt. Nirmala Mago, passed away on 19.11.2000 and thereafter the tenancy right devolved upon her legal heirs. Her son Surender Kumar (Respondent No. 1), is one of her legal heirs and pursuant to the mutual understanding between all the legal heirs, the landlord was informed that respondent no. 1 would be the successor tenant in the said premises was alleged that the Suit premises had been sublet to Smt. Alka Mago, i.e respondent no. 2, on the basis that she had started carrying on her own independent business from the said premises under the name and style of M/s Konark Enterprises. She had also opened a bank account with Canara Bank, Rajouri garden branch in the name of M/s Konark Enterprises, wherein she was shown as the sole proprietor of the said concern. It was alleged that the Petitioner had received a cheque dated 1.01.2002 bearing no. 376732 for a sum of Rs. 16940/-, purported to be rent for the period 1.11.2000 to 31001.2002 from the above said account.

11. The next issue that arises is whether these erroneousfindings of the Ld. RCT has any bearing or effect on the decision of the Ld. RCT on the merits of this case. Undisputedly, upon the demise of the original tenant, the tenancy rights devolved upon respondent no. 1 and he was entitled to use and occupy the suit premise. The Ld. RCT has not considered it necessary to go into the aspect, whether the finding of the Ld. ARC that the partnership deed between the original tenant Smt. Nirmala Devi and respondent no. 2 was a camouflage or not. He merely proceeds on the premise that respondent no. 2 being a family member of the original tenant, as well as of respondent no. 1 could use and carry on her sole proprietary business without being labeled as a subtenant. Since the aforesaid observations of the Ld. RCT which are factually incorrect do not in any way impinge on the reasoning adopted by him, in my view, the said errors are not material and merely on account of the said errors, the impugned order cannot be set aside.