1. The petitioner is aggrieed by an order of Additional Rent Control Tribunal dated 8th January, 2007 whereby he set aside the judgment of ARC dated 27th May, 2004 and allowed the Eiction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. The facts releant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of premises no. 13/39, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh. The respondent found that the premises was in occupation of M/s. Letheria (an undertaking of Punjab Goernment) and the petitioner had sub- let/parted with the possession of premises to M/s. Letheria without obtaining consent in writing of the landlord. A petition under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act was preferred. The landlord also got a Local Commissioner appointed for inspection of the property, immediately on filing the Eiction Petition. The Local Commissioner appointed by the Court inspected the premises and filed his report stating that premises was occupied by Sh. Sanjee Kumar, an employee of Letheria (a Punjab Goernment undertaking), who informed him that Mr. R.M. Lal was the Area Manager of Punjab State Leather Deelopment Corporation (PSLDC) and incharge of the shop. There were 4 employees of Letheria working with him in the shop.

3. The petitioner/tenant in the WS denied the allegations regarding sub-letting and took the stand that the petitioner was the agent of Punjab State Leather Deelopment Corporation (PSLDC) for the sale of complete range of leather goods. The company (PSLDC) used to supply goods to him bill-wise on consignment basis and he used to get commission of 10% of the net sale alue. The goods left unsold were returned in the same condition to PSLDC.

4. The petitioner, howeer, filed no documents in respect of his stand along with WS. The learned ARC after considering the eidence adduced by both the parties came to conclusion that the sub-letting cannot be presumed merely because a third person was in possession of the property. There was an agency agreement between petitioner and M/s. Punjab State Leather Deelopment Corporation (PSLDC). The documents such as sale tax return and income tax return filed by the tenant show that it was an agency agreement and there was no sub-letting. The respondent herein preferred an appeal against the order of the learned ARC and also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for summoning officials of Punjab State Leather Deelopment Corporation (PSLDC) who had though been earlier summoned, but had not brought releant documents at that time on the ground that the record was not traceable.

5. The application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was allowed by the learned ARCT and additional eidence was taken on record. The learned ARCT after considering the eidence as led in the case came to conclusion that only initial burden was on the landlord/respondent to show that the premises was in occupation of a third party and thereafter burden shifted to the tenant to explain the presence of third party and found that learned ARC had not appreciated the eidence on record and had een not gien heed to the contradictions in the testimony of the petitioner/tenant himself. He came to conclusion that it was not a case of agency but was a case of sub-letting.

6. Aggrieed by this judgment, the petitioner has preferred this petition on the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that there was an agency agreement of the petitioner with Punjab State Leather Deelopment Corporation (PSLDC) for sale of their goods as far back as in the year 1985 and the Tribunal erred in not appreciating all the terms and conditions goerning the agency agreement executed between the parties and there was no reason to beliee that there was sub-letting. The learned ARCT had no reason to doubt the terms and conditions of agency agreement. It is also submitted that the learned ARCT failed to appreciate that though the staff of Punjab State Leather Deelopment C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document