Santosh Duggal, J.

( 1 ) SHRI S. P. Bawa, (since dead), who was the original owner/landlord of the premises, being Shop No. 19/5, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, filed an eviction petition against Smt. Ishwar Kaw , as respondent No, 1, and Gumarn Singh (appellant No. 2 herein), as respondent No. 2, alleging that Ishwar Kaur was tenant in the shop with effect from 1965, by Virtue of a judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal, passed in eviction proceedings, taken out earlier by the landlord against one Balwant Singh, impleading Ishwar Kaur as respondent No. 2, alleging her to be the sub-tenant.

( 2 ) IN appears that in view of the concurrent findings in that eviction petition, the landlord accepted the decision, holding Ishwar Kaur being a tenant, and the eviction petition, out of which this second appeal has arisen,,was filed in April 1971 invoking provisions of clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ).-

( 3 ) THE allegations were that besides committing defeault in the payment of rent, Ishwar Kaur had, without obtaining consent in writing of the landlord, sub-let, assigned or parted with possession of the suit premises in favour of respondent No. 2 who was alleged to be in exclusive possession of the same. In so far as ground of non-payment of rent was concerned, an order under section 15 (1.) of the Act was passed, and there is no dispute that Ishwar Kaur, so long as she was alive, kept on complying with the same. She, however, died during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. The Controller took the view that since Ishwar Kaur had become a statutory tenant by virtute of termination of her tenancy by means of a notice, the tenancy was not heritable, and that her daughter (Kulwant Kaur, appellant No. 1 herein), who was her only legal representative, could not avail of provisions of section 14 (2) of the Act by complying with the provisions of section 15 (1 ). It was on this view, that the landlord/petitioner was held entitled to eviction order on the ground of non- payment of rent.

( 4 ) IN so far as the second ground was concerned, a finding was returned after appraisal of the evidence that Gumarn Singh was in exclusive possession of the shop, and that the withnesses examined by the respondent, including Balwant Singh, brother of Gurnam Singh stated that it was only Gurnam Singh who was in control and possession of the shop premises, and that Ishwar Kaur never came to the shop. The improvement, which was sought to be made by Kulwant Kaur, while appearing as RW. 3, to the effect that the shop was opened and closed by the servant during the life time of her mother, on her behalf seemed to be an after thought, and was rejected as such. Gurnam Singh, appearing as RW2, admitted the fact which was alleged in the eviction petition, that a printing press was installed in the shop premises, but contended that the same was financed by Ishwar Kaur, and that the printing press machine had been purchased in the name of the Company. In view of the fact that no receipt could be produced showing purchase of the printing-press, in the name of Ishwar Kaur, and in the absence of any other evidence to show that Ishwar Kaur was never in control or had participated in the business being run in the shop premises, the finding relumed was that it was a case of assignment or parting with possession of the shop by Ishwar Kaur in favour of Gurnam Singh. The plea of respondent that Gurnam Singh was husband of the only daughter of Ishwar Kaur, and that both the daughter and-son-in-law were living with her arid that Gurnam Singh was in possession of the shop premises in his capacity as a ghar Jamai did not find favour with. the court.

( 5 ) ON an appeal being filed before the Rent Control Tribunal, both the findings in respect to ground of non-payment of rent. on account of legal proposition that the tenancy was not heritable, as al$o the finding of fact on the question of sublettin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document