The central legal point established in the judgment is that the creation of a sub-tenancy depends on the specific facts of each case and cannot be presumed solely based on a family member assisting in the tenant's business.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. - The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM APPL. 3126/2022 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

This application stands disposed of.

CM (M) 59/2022 & CM APPL. 3125/2022 (for stay)

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against a judgment dated 01.12.2021 rendered by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (HQs) & Rent Control Tribunal(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ["the Tribunal"] in RCT No. 02/2021. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-appellant against the order of the Additional Rent Controller ["Trial Court"] dated 22.12.2020, allowing the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlady under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ["the Act"].

2. The eviction petition was filed both under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Act. By an order dated 27.11.2014, the petition was allowed under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, but was dismissed under Section 14(1)(b). Against the aforesaid order, so far as Section 14(1)(b) of the Act was concerned, the landlady carried the matter to the Tribunal by way of RCT No. 30276/2016. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law, after giving the landlady an opportunity to produce evidence/documents.

3. The case of the landlady was that the suit property [Shop No. 29/9, Ground Floor, Shakti Nagar, New Delhi-110007] ["the property"] had been let to the petitioner in 1974 by her predecessor in interest. The monthly rent claimed by the landlady was Rs. 96.80 per month, and it was averred that the petitioner neither paid nor tendered the agreed rent since 01.08.2003. After service of a legal notice dated 18.08.2009, the landlady alleged that the dues had not been cleared and also that the petitioner had sub-let the property to one Shri Kapil Luthra without her knowledge, consent or permission. Eviction was, therefore, sought both under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Act. The said Shri Kapil Luthra is the son of Shri Vir Bhan, who is the nephew of the petitioner herein.

4. In the judgment dated 22.12.2020, the learned Trial Court, after noticing the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act and several authorities, recorded that, in the reply dated 17.09.2009 sent on behalf of the petitioner to the legal notice of the landlady, the presence of Shri Kapil Luthra in the property was admitted, although it was stated that he was assisting the petitioner in the conduct of the business. The petitioner's evidence was that no written partnership deed was executed between him and Shri Kapil Luthra or his father. The Trial Court also analysed the testimony of Shri Kapil Luthra to the following effect:-

"40. Moreover, during the cross-examination, RW2, Sh. Kapil Luthra has deposed that "I conduct the business in the name of Luthra Cycle Stores from the disputed premises. I do not have any other shop or any other business. I am an Income tax payee but I have not filed any paper with regard to the same. My firm is registered as Luthra Cycle Store with the registering authorities but I have not filed any document of the same. I deposit the rent of the suit shop in the bank through my grandfather Sh. Deshraj Luthra (Dadaji). I have not brought any record of the deposit of rent with the bank. " "

5. On this basis, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that Shri Kapil Luthra was running a business in the property and did not have any other shop or business, and also noticed that Shri Kapil Luthra had not claimed to deposit the rent of the property on behalf of the petitioner herein. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was neither in physical nor in legal possession of the property, and, therefore, sustained the landlady's plea under Section 14(l)(b)of the Act.

6. Upon the petitioner filing an appeal against the afo