The main legal point established is the requirement of written consent for sub-letting or parting with possession of premises under the DRC Act, and the mandatory compliance with eviction procedures, particularly the special procedure under Section 25B.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present revision petition is filed under Section 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) seeking to impugn the ex parte eviction order dated 15.09.2015 passed the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter after referred to as the ARC) under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act.

2. Earlier, I had heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.K. Saini and Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. As certain clarifications were required, the case was listed on 08.09.2017 and today.

3. The respondents filed the eviction petition against the said alleged tenant, namely, M/s. Hindustan Petro Chemicals through its proprietor Smt. Savita Rani. It was stated that the proprietorship concern through Smt. Savita Rani is the tenant of one shop on the ground floor of the premises being WZ-32, Mohanohar Park, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The respondents also state that the tenanted premises are however exclusively occupied by one Sh.Gaurav Gupta to whom the premises have been sub-let, assigned, parted with possession. It is stated that Sh.Gaurav Gupta is the son of Smt. Savita Rani and that he is in possession of the premises without the written consent of the respondents.

It was urged that the father of the respondents, namely, Sh.Chunni Lal Sharma was the owner of the property via sale deed dated 01.07.1967. In 1979, the said Sh. Chunni Lal Sharma had let out one shop on the ground floor to M/s Hindustan Petro Chemicals through its sole proprietor Smt. Savita Rani (petitioner No.1). Smt. Savita Rani had entered into a partnership with one Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta for doing business. Copy of the partnership deed dated 18.07.1979 was provided to Sh. Chunni Lal Sharma. Subsequently, Sh. Jai Prakash Gupta retired from the said business in 1979 and the partnership came to an end. It was further urged that the property consists ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. One hall on the ground floor is being used by the mother and daughter of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is also using a small office on the ground floor. It was urged that the respondents require the tenanted premises for bona fide use and business as they are unable to carry on the business from a small area available to them. The first floor of the property is said to be used by respondent No.1, his wife, his married son and daughter-in-law and the second floor is being used by respondent No. 2, his wife and his two sons for residential purposes. The third floor comprises two tin sheds and one toilet which are being used jointly by the respondents.

4. The present petition is filed by Smt. Savita Rani as petitioner No.1. The concern M/s Hindustan Petro Chemicals through alleged sole proprietor Shri Gaurav Gupta is arrayed as petitioner No.2.

5. The impugned order notes that the notice of the eviction petition was sent to petitioner No.1 i.e. Smt. Savita Rani, the proprietor and petitioner No.2. However, Sh. Gaurav Gupta, the son of petitioner No.1 refused to accept the summons and hence, the service was deemed effected upon the petitioner No.1. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 25B of the DRC Act, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Singh (dead) through LRs, (2009) 2 SCC 15 and also the averments in the eviction petition, the ARC passed an eviction order in favour of the respondents.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued as follows:-

(i) The respondents reside in the same premises where the tenanted premises exist. They have hence manipulated the service.

(ii) The admitted fact is that Sh. Gaurav Gupta is the tenant of the premises. In fact in the eviction petition, a reference was also made about the said Sh. Gaurav Gupta. Yet the respondents have chosen to affect service through Smt. Savita Rani which is illegal and incorrect inasmuch as Sm