3-W International vs Ashok Kumar Sehdev

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The impugned order is dated 18.02.2012. This order was passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) affirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.03.2011 vide which the eviction petition filed by the landlord namely Ashok Kumar Sehdev seeking eviction of this tenant i.e. M/s 3-W International from the demised premises i.e. shop bearing No. 149, DDA Cycle Market, Jhandewalan, New Delhi u/s 14 (1)(a)& (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been decreed. Record shows that the eviction petition had been filed by the landlord against the tenant on the aforenoted two provisions. Contention was that the respondent has sublet the premises to M/s Surya International, M/s J.K. Gum Industries as also to Mr. S. Sahni and had present sublet to M/s Convest Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Ground u/s 14 (109b) of the DRCA had been pleaded. Petition had also been filed u/s 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA; contention being that the tenant was in arrears of rent and inspite of last legal notice dated 01.11.1999 having served upon the tenant, he has failed to pay the arrears of rent; a notice u/s 6A of the DRCA had also been issued on 10.12.1999 seeking enhancement of rent; rent not having being paid, the tenant was also liable to be evicted on the ground u/s 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not seriously disputing the finding returned u/s 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA as the question whether the tenant is entitled to benefit u/s 14 (2) of the DRCA is yet pending before the ARC and as such his arguments have only been confined to the finding returned by the RCT u/s 14 (1)(b) of the DRCA.

Record shows that after the filing of the eviction petition, written statement had been filed; contention of the tenant was that M/s Surya International is the proprietorship concern of Mr. S.L. Sahbi; Mr. S.L. Sahni being the tenant in the suit property and not being different from M/s Surya International, there was no question of subletting; it was denied that the premises had been sub-let to M/s Surya International or M/s J.K. Gum Industries or to Mr. S. Sahni and M/s Convest Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

One witness was examined by the landlord namely Ashok Sehdev examined as AW-1 who had reiterated all these averments in the eviction petition on oath; he has on oath stated that the premises had been sublet by the tenant S.L. Sahni to one Mr. S.K. Sahni who is illegally occupying the premises and the tenant has parted with possession of the premises; having been sublet it to another firm; the fact that Mr. S.L. Sahni was doing business from this firm and that he had a telephone connection had been proved as Ex. AW-1/17; on oath it had also been reiterated that the portion of the premises had also been let out to M/s Surya International @ Rs. 3,000/- per month; it was categorically denied that M/s Surya International was the proprietorship concern of Mr. S.L. Sahni; on oath it had been reiterated that a portion of the premises had also been let out to M/s J.K. Gum Industries as also to M/s Pacific Aircon Pvt. Ltd. which is dealing in the sale and manufacturer of air-conditioners; pamphlet issued by the said business concern had been proved as Ex. AW-1/18. The deposition on oath was to the effect that the respondent had also sublet to another portion of the premises to M/s Convest Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and its director Mr. Dinesh Kapoor was using this premises; M/s Sitco Impex Pvt. Ltd. was also working from the aforenoted company; clear case of sub-letting is made out.

Record further shows that this witness had not been cross-examined; it is also an admitted fact that no evidence has been led by the respondent. It is in this background that the evidence which was adduced and collected by the trial Court has to be viewed.

This Court is sitting in its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and unless and until a flagrant injustice or manifest illegality has been committed by the two courts below, powers of interference are limited. The Apex Court in Waryam Singh and Another Vs. Amarnath and Another, a judgment of the Constitution Bench has laid down the guidelines which were to be followed by the High Courts in exercise of its powers of superintendence. This Court is not an appellate forum. No patent illegality or perversity has also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner.

The findings returned were based on a cogent and clear evidence led by the petitioner that the finding was returned by the ARC and endorsed by the RCT that a case of sub-letting and parting with possession has been made out by the tenant in favour of the sub-tenant; the documentary evidence had been adverted to in the right perspective. In this background, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.