AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 270 wordsR.S. Sodhi, J.—C.M. (M) 883 of 2004 seeks to challenge the order dated 8.7.2004 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short ''the Tribunal''), Delhi, in RCA No. 765/2001, which was an appeal against order dated 8.11.2001 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi whereby in an eviction petition u/s 14(1)(b) of the Act an order for recovery of possession has been passed in respect of the premises in question against the tenant. The tribunal found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same.
It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a tenant in his own right and that there was no question of subletting in view of Ex. PW-1/A. He also submits that the same has not been taken into consideration while deciding the petition.
Counsel for the respondent has taken me through the record of the case where in the resolution, Ex. PW-1/E, it is clearly mentioned that Ajanta Arts Company and M/s Ravish & Company are two separate firms to which specific portions have been rented out. But in the evidence it has come on record that the entire premises has been controlled by and is being operated by M/s Ajanta Arts Company only.
Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on record, it appears to me that there are concurrent findings of fact that subletting or parting with possession has been proved.
In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Accordingly, C.M. (M) 883/2004 and C.M. Appl. 8570 of 2004 are dismissed.