The main legal point established in the judgment is the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the burden of proof in cases of sub-letting under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

JUDGMENT :

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, as the landlord, is the original applicant in an eviction proceeding instituted under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) seeking recovery of possession of a shop room located at Connaught Place in the central part of Delhi. The eviction proceeding was instituted in the year 1974. We shall henceforth refer to the shop room as “subject-premises”. In that proceeding instituted before the Rent Controller, Delhi, altogether three individuals and three firms were originally impleaded as respondents. In this appeal, however, only three respondents have been impleaded, being the firm-Young Friends & Co. and two individuals – Ashu Mohan Gupta and Shashi Gupta. They have been described as contesting respondents. On that count, however, no controversy has been raised before us. The appellant admittedly is the landlord of the subject-premises. This was rented out to the then proprietor (since deceased) of the first respondent in the year 1936. The appellant became the landlord thereof on having purchased the subject-premises from its erstwhile owner in the year 1958. The main ground on which eviction was asked for was sub-letting without consent of the landlord.

3. The respondents run a retail outlet from the subject-premises and at the material point of time, the respondents were operating from there a chemist shop. The substance of allegations of the landlord was that the respondents had sub-let certain portions of the premises to three medical practitioners, (including one dentist) and two other firms. They were included as respondent nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the eviction application. By an order passed on 5th June, 1997, the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dismissed the petition holding that the appellant had failed to show that there was any sub-letting, assignment or parting with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of persons/entities who were included in the array of respondents. So far as respondent no.5 (Young Friends & Co.) is concerned, finding was that it was an entity of the respondent tenant only. As regards the sixth respondent in the eviction petition, the Rent Controller held that no sub-letting, assignment or parting with possession of any portion of the subject-premises. Respondent no. 6 was found to be occupying a public verandah outside the tenanted premises. The appellant’s plea for eviction was founded on certain other grounds as well, but those grounds also could not be established before the Rent Controller. It was held by the said forum that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 were not in exclusive possession of the subject-premises.

4. The Appellate Tribunal, however, reversed the decision of the authority of the first instance, and passed an order of eviction on the ground of sub-letting. The Tribunal tested the appellant’s case on the basis of allegations pertaining to subletting to the three medical practitioners. The Tribunal accepted the appellant’s stand that the facts of the case disclosed subletting of the subject-premises in favour of respondent nos. 2 (Dr. Pradip Jayna), 3 (Dr. S. S. Pant) and 4 (Shri K.N. Mehta). We find from the judgment under appeal that the landlord had pressed the petition on account of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 having been inducted as sub-tenants without the consent in writing by the landlord.

5. The respondents, thus, invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Delhi High Court assailing the order of the Tribunal. The respondents were successful in that proceedings. The High Court, in the judgment delivered on 14th November, 2018 allowed the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, holding:-

“51. The prime conclusion of ARCT that the user of the space by R-2 to R-4 during the period they were in their respective clinic renders it they being in “exclusive possession” is not supported by any evidence, it being a conclusion ba