The court affirmed that tenancy agreements cannot be formed by minors and emphasized the requirement of landlord consent for sub-letting, particularly reviewing rights from the date of eviction petition filing.

JUDGMENT

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)--The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment dated 01st June, 2020 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) in RCT No. 9/2016 , whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner/tenant under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) against the order dated 20th September, 2012 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) allowing the eviction proceedings against the petitioner/tenant, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts necessary to the extent relevant for deciding the present petition are set out below:

2.1 Eviction proceedings were initiated on behalf of the respondent No.1/landlord in respect of shop measuring 12' X 7' feet situated in property bearing No. B-347, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi-110027, let out to the father of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs.625/- per month, later enhanced to Rs.687.50 per month. The premises was let out in the year 1979 without any document.

2.2 Eviction petition was filed by the landlord on 19th August, 2004, under Section 14(1)(a), (b) and (j) of the DRC Act.

2.3 The said eviction petition was contested by the petitioner along with his deceased father by filing a joint written statement wherein, it was inter alia contended that father of the petitioner had never sub-let the said premises to the petitioner and the petitioner was himself an independent tenant in the said premises.

2.4 The eviction petition was allowed under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act by the ARC, while it was dismissed Under The same was dismissed under Section 14(1)(j) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, an eviction order was passed under Section 14(1)(b) in favour of the landlord and against the petitioner and his father. Insofar as the relief under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was concerned, an order was passed under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act directing the respondent and his father to pay arrears of rent. Upon the payment of arrears by the petitioner, the benefit under Section 14(2) of the DRC Act was given to the petitioner.

2.5 An appeal was filed by the petitioner on 30th October, 2012 against the aforesaid judgment and the said appeal has been dismissed by the RCT vide impugned judgment dated 01st June, 2020.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that:

(i) Finding of the ARC in para 9 of the order dated 20th September, 2012 that the petitioner's father did not contest the case or file any specific objections to the eviction petition filed by the landlord is wrong.

(ii) No document has been brought on record by the landlord to show that the shop in question was let out to the petitioner's father.

(iii) The landlord was throughout aware that the shop in question was in occupation of the petitioner.

(iv) It is clear from the various rent receipts issued by the landlord as well as the telephone records that the petitioner was in occupation of the premises.

(v) After the demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner inherited the tenancy in question so there cannot be any sub-letting.

4. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/ landlord submits that:

(i) Petitioner was not a major in the year 1983 when he claims he was inducted as a tenant. Therefore, no valid contract of tenancy could have been created in his favour.

(ii) Inconsistent stands have been taken by the petitioner in different proceedings so as to continue to be in occupation of the premises.

5. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the orders passed by the ARC as well as the Rent Control Tribunal. It is a settled position of law that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scop