The central legal point established is the heavy burden on landlords to prove sub-letting under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Statute(s) Considered:

S. 14(1)(a) and (b), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,

S. 101 and S.109, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned judgment dated 29th August, 2017, by which the ld. District and Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No.2/Sub-Tenant -Sh. Liyaquat Hussain (hereinafter, "Respondent No.2") and set-aside the eviction order dated 6th June, 2015, passed by the ld. Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller.

Facts

2. The background of this case is that the Petitioners/Landlords - Mr. K. K. Balli, Mr. Dinesh Sikka and Mr. Sanjay Kapoor (hereinafter, "Landlords") filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) & (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in respect of Shop No.19, Ground Floor, IX/6932, Hanuman Market, Prem Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi - 110031 (hereinafter, "suit property"), against Respondent Nos.1 and 2. The primary allegation in the petition was that Respondent No.1 was the main Tenant (hereinafter, "Respondent No.1") and Respondent No.2 was the Sub-Tenant and sub-letting was done behind the back of the Landlords.

3. The ld. Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, vide order dated 6th June, 2015, decreed the eviction petition on the ground of sub-letting. The said order was appealed by Respondent No.2 before the ld. District and Sessions Judge, who, vide the impugned judgment dated 29th August, 2017, set aside the said decree.

Submissions

4. The grounds in the present petition which are urged by the ld. counsel for the Landlords are that the Respondents do not question the ownership of the Landlords. The suit property was purchased by the Landlords in the year 2005 from three owners, including one Chaudhary Raj Singh. It is further submitted that the ld. District and Sessions Judge has, in the impugned order, completely misinterpreted the provisions of Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter, "IEA") to hold that the onus of proving sub-letting has not been discharged by the Landlords. It is submitted that the eviction order was quite well-reasoned and captured all the facts in respect of the discrepancies in the case of the Respondents.

5. Respondent No.2 claims that he was given possession of the suit property in January, 2000, by Chaudhary Raj Singh. However, ld. Counsel for the Landlords submits that Chaudhary Raj Singh himself purchased the suit property only in May, 2000 and thus, could not have given it on rent to Respondent No.2 in January, 2000. He further submits that the rent receipts which have been placed on record, including the rent receipts for the months of January, 2000, February, 2000 and March, 2000, are all forged and fabricated documents, inasmuch as Chaudhary Raj Singh did not have the right to collect rent till May, 2000. It is submitted that the onus of proving sub-letting was initially discharged by the Landlords by showing that Respondent No.2 was in possession of the suit property and after this, the onus shifted onto Respondent No.2, which he failed to discharge. It is thus argued that on a misinterpretation of Section 101 of the IEA, the eviction decree could not have been set-aside.

6. Ld. counsel for the Landlords further submits that the case of Respondent No.1, that he surrendered his tenancy to Chaudhary Raj Singh on 15th December, 1999, is false, inasmuch as Chaudhary Raj Singh did not have any right to take possession or accept the surrender of the tenancy in December, 1999. Once it was established that the Respondents were making incorrect statements in their pleadings and evidence, the eviction decree was liable to be upheld, inasmuch as it was not disputed that Respondent No.2 was in possession of the suit property.

7. Ld. counsel for the Landlords relies upon the judgments in Prem Prakash v. Santosh Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) and Anr., (2017) 8 JT 606 (SC) and Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (1998) 3 SCC 1. It is submitted by ld. counsel for the Landlo