JUDGMENT

SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.

1. In this special leave petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, CM (M) No.516 of 2007, dated 23rd March, 2009, whereby the High Court has quashed and set aside the order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal ["ARCT" for short] dated 12th March, 2001, upholding the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller ["ARC" for brevity].

2. Heard counsel. Leave granted. The facts, as noticed by the High Court, are that the appellants are claiming themselves to be the landlords in respect of premises constructed on the plot of land No.2, Block B, transport area of Jhandewalan Estate, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

3. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the premises were let out to respondent No.2, Delhi Transport Corporation [for short "DTC"], on a monthly rental of Rs.3500/-. DTC has sublet/assigned the premises in favour of respondent No.1, Municipal Corporation of Delhi [for short "MCD"] and parted with possession in favour of MCD without the written consent of the appellants. Therefore, both DTC and MCD were liable for eviction. The High Court has noticed the sequence of events since the transport services were being run by Gwalior Northern India Transport Company (for short "GNIT") to the time when DTC stepped into its shoes. The appellants claimed that the tenancy of the premises was with DTC. MCD had, however, claimed that the legal possession was retained by MCD; rent was being paid by MCD to DTC.

4. The ARC by an order dated 11th November, 1989, upon consideration of the rival contentions, held:

"19. Admittedly it is respondent No.2 (MCD) who is in possession of the premises in question. It is also admitted that respondent No.2 (MCD) pays a sum of Rs.3500/- as rent to respondent No.1 (DTC) by way of cheques. It is not the case of the respondent that any written consent of the petitioners was obtained in this regard. Therefore, it has to be held that respondent no.1 (DTC) has either sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the tenanted premises illegally to respondent No.2 (MCD). It is well settled that in voluntarily (sic) transfers are also included with the meaning of sub-letting etc. in Section 14(1)(b) DRC Act.".

5. The order passed by the ARC was upheld by the ARCT with the following observations:

"15. After having heard up the matter in all its possible aspects I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding of the learned trial court by holding that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and since the exclusive possession of the premises was handed over by the erstwhile tenant to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, i.e., respondent No.2 which is itself a separate and independent legal entity, it amounts to sub- letting."

6. The High Court set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the ARC and ARCT with the following observations:

"The orders passed by learned ARC and the learned ARCT categorically show that neither the learned ARC nor learned ARCT has devolved upon the facts of the case and nor had even considered the concept of tenancy and sub tenancy in this case in the peculiar circumstances of this case."

7. The High Court held that this is not a case of sub- letting as Delhi Transport Services (for short "DTS"), Delhi Transport Undertaking (for short "DTU"), MCD and DTC were the creation of statute. The premises had come to them after it was acquired by Union of India (UOI) from GNIT on nationalization of the business. There was no parting with possession by DTC to MCD, therefore, it was not sub-letting. The DTC was incorporated in lieu of DTU as a separate company to facilitate running of transport business. Mere payment of Rs.3500/- per month by MCD to DTC does not show sub-letting or parting with possession. Relying on a judgment of this Court in Madras Bangalore Transport Co. [West] Vs.