The main legal point established is the importance of distinguishing between lease and license, and the relevance of the employer-employee relationship in determining the landlord-tenant relationship under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

The present is a classic case of what is wrong in the prevalent tenancy laws. The Petitioner - Shri V.K. Dhingra was appointed as a Senior Analyst with Sri Ram Scientific Industrial Research Foundation (hereinafter "Foundation"). He was allotted residential accommodation by the Foundation, last of which was at Flat No. A-2, SRI Colony, 19, University Road, Delhi-110007. He was in the employment of the Foundation since 1981 and resigned on 16th July, 1992. He has retained the flat since the last 27 years without paying any rent and the Foundation has had to remain embroiled in this long-drawn litigation with him in order to be able to evict him from the residential accommodation, which is purely meant for staff of the Foundation.

2. An eviction petition under Section 14(1)(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was filed by the Foundation on 25th February, 1993. Vide order dated 8th May, 2012, the eviction petition was dismissed on the ground that the relationship of landlord and tenant has not been established. The operative portion of the said order, which has been passed 21 years after the institution of the eviction petition, reads as under:

"16. After careful perusal of judgment relied upon by the petitioner, it is reflected that it is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances. In the present case, the amount deducted from the salary of respondent is the license fee and not the rent. It is pertinent to mention here that license fee cannot be equated with rent in any circumstances. Petitioner himself has acknowledged this fact, during evidence, as well as during final arguments. The judgment of "Torbett's case (Supra)" and "B. M. Lal's case"(Supra) have laid emphasis upon this distinction nicely. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per the scheme and object of Delhi Rent Control Act the foremost requirement of envoking the jurisdiction of Rent Controller is that there must exist a landlord tenant relationship in between the parties. A person, who is not paying the rent but a license fee cannot be considered as tenant, hence, cannot be said to have covered under jurisdiction of Delhi Rent Control Act. In these circumstances, therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner has not been able to establish the foremost requirement that their exist landlord tenant relationship in between the parties and respondent is the tenant as per Section 2(i) of Delhi Rent Control Act. In these circumstances, therefore, as their exist no landlord tenant relationship in between the parties, hence, Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to try this case. Hence, petition filed by the petitioner seeking eviction under Delhi Rent Control Act is not maintainable, hence, it is dismissed."

3. An appeal was preferred by the Foundation challenging the said dismissal. The said appeal was decided by the impugned order dated 19th August, 2019. By the impugned order, the Appellate Court held that the relationship between the parties was one of lease and not of a license. The view of the Ld. Rent Controller was set aside and an order of eviction was passed. The findings of the ld. Appellate Court are as under:

"19. As discussed above, exclusivity of possession of the premises with the occupant is a prima facie indicator of lease, unless other circumstances negate the intention to create lease. In the present case, no circumstance except the terminology of the occupation charges was put forth to negate the intention to create lease.

20. Therefore, I am not at all in doubt while holding that the jural relationship between the parties was of lease and not of license. That being so, I am unable to uphold the view of the learned Additional Rent Controller in the impugned, judgment that the petitioner under Section 14(l)(i) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not maintainable.

21. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2012 and 06.07.2012 of the learned Additional Rent Controller are s