Subletting without landlord consent constitutes grounds for eviction, and claims of operational control by a tenant fail where distinct legal entities are involved.

JUDGMENT

Asha Menon, J. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing/setting aside of the judgment of the learned Rent Control Tribunal ("RCT", for short) dated 12th February, 2021, passed in RCT No.24/2018 and the judgment of the learned Additional Rent Controller ("ARC", for short) dated 8th June, 2018, passed in E- No.24/2008.

2. It may be noticed that cross-objections had been filed by the present respondent No.1 (M/s.Northern India Iron And Steel Co. Ltd.) when the appeal was filed by the present petitioners before the learned RCT, and the cross-objections have also been disposed of vide the impugned order dated 12th February, 2021. However, no petition has been filed by the respondent No.1 against that part of the impugned order.

3. The facts, as are relevant for the disposal of the present petition, are that the respondent No.1 herein is the owner and landlord of the premises bearing No.10-B, Scindia House (bearing Municipal No.13), Connaught Place, New Delhi, having purchased the same vide Sale Deed 31st May, 1986 from its erstwhile owners, namely, M/s.Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd.. M/s. New India Motors (New Delhi) Private Limited i.e., the petitioner No.1 herein, was already a tenant in the premises at that time, having been inducted by the previous landlords, namely, Sardar Kushwant Singh and Brig. Gurbux Singh, vide Lease Deed dated 24th February, 1971.

4. The respondent No.1 had filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("DRC Act", for short) against the petitioners on grounds of the petitioner No.1 having sublet the premises to the co-petitioners. It was alleged that the premises had also been sublet to the respondent No.2. The learned ARC came to the finding that the premises had been sublet by the petitioner No.1 herein to the petitioners No.2 & 3 herein, and ordered eviction. Qua the respondent No.2 herein i.e., M/s. East West Agencies, the learned ARC held that the decision in a previous eviction petition filed by the petitioner No.1 against the respondent No.2, which had been dismissed by the then RCT, operated as res-judicata qua the ground of subletting.

5. The learned RCT vide its judgment dated 12th February, 2021 upheld the decision of the learned ARC that the petitioner No.1 had sublet the premises to the petitioners No.2 & 3. Since there was a finding by the competent Civil Court that the premises in dispute had been sublet by the petitioner No.1 to the respondent No.2, against which RFA No.319/2008 was pending before the High Court, it set aside that part of the finding of the learned ARC dismissing the petition on principles of res-judicata. However, it chose to adjourn the cross-objections bearing RCT No.37/2018 sine die to await the decision of the High Court in RFA No.319/2008.

6. Mr. Ajay Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the conclusions of the learned ARC as well as the learned RCT were erroneous inasmuch as the original landlord had, while executing the Lease-Deed dated 24th February, 1971, permitted K.C. Jain and Sons to carry on their business from the demised premises. It was submitted that Sh.Pawan Sagar Jain is the MD of the three petitioners/Companies and was a member of the family of Sh.K.C. Jain and thus, had been permitted to run any business from the premises. It was submitted that subletting entails the effacement of the tenant from the control over and possession of the tenanted premises. However, in