1. This appeal filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is directed against the order dated 4.5.2000 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, in RCA No. 210/1994, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 5.03.1994 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, whereby an eviction order has been passed in an Eviction Petition No 3/1988 filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act on the ground of the alleged subletting of the premises in question.

2. Briefly stated the dispute is in respect to one shop private No 1 in property No 5166, Ground floor, Kohlapur Road, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as premises). Appellant is the tenant who according to the case of the respondent sub-let the premises to one Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain after 9th June, 1952 without obtaining the consent of the respondent or their predecessor in interest while appellant himself is carrying on his business under the name and style of Adarsh Vastra Bhandar in another shop in building No 5165 and is carrying on his business under the name and style of Adarsh Vastra Bhandar. Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain in exclusive possession of the demised premises is carrying on his business under the name and style of Jain Vastra Bhandar. Thus considering this act on the part of the deceased tenant as an act of assignment/transfer/subletting, the appellant filed eviction petition No 3/1988 before the Rent Controller Delhi under Section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. The said eviction petition was allowed in favour of the respondent, Against the said order dated 05.03.1994, the appellant filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal being (RCA No. 210/1994) primarily on the ground that Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain is the real brother of the appellant and that he was carrying on business in partnership with his wife and Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain. The appeal was dismissed. Both the Additional Rent Controller as well as Additional Rent Control Tribunal have given a concurrent finding that the partnership relied upon by the appellant to defend his possession was not genuine. The real purpose of the partnership was only to sublet which becomes a ground of eviction and accordingly both ARC as well as ARCT have given concurrent findings that it was a case of subletting.

3. In order to show that the exclusive possession has been handed over by the appellant to his brother Dinesh Kumar and partnership deed is just a camaflouge, the counsel for the respondent has referred to documents namely the form for obtaining telephone connection Ex Rw 1/Ax-1 and 2 which shows that it was Dinesh kumar who had applied for telephone connection in his name and not in the name of the partnership firm. in the coulmn of form soliciting information as to the names of the partners who are carrying on business in the said premises the information was given as „nil „

4. The learned Tribunal observed as under:- “It appears even from the partnership deed that partnership is nothing but a camaflouge . Had there been an intention on the part of the tenant to have legal, actual and physical possession of the suit premises, there was no reason for him to continue his independent business at some other place. Moreover he only allowed his share to be 10% in the partnership and the statement of the appellant and his brother that it is the appellant who comes to open and close the shop is nothing but an effort to show that the appellant has control over the premises and has not parted with the possession.

Failure of the appellant to produce the accounts books is another circumstance that goes against the appellant and against the genuineness of the partnership deed, so much so in the midst of cross- examination the appellant was directed to produce books of accounts and the statement of profit and loss as well as his individual income tax assessment order etc. but inspite of these directions he could not