$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision^: 04^th September, 2024 + CM(M) 1376/2017 ANIL KALRA & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal with Mr. Vineet Mishra, Ms. Navita Gupta and Mr. Sonil Yadav, Advocates with petitioner in person.

versus SHEIKH MOHD IQBAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja with Ms. Garima Saxena, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Respondent had filed a petition seeking eviction of his tenants Sh. Anil Kalra and his wife Smt. Kiran Bala from the tenanted premises on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting as provided under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short “DRC Act”) respectively.

2. According to landlord/respondent, the rate of rent was Rs. 550/- per month, excluding other charges. It was contended that the tenants were in arrears and that they had sublet the tenanted premises and had parted with possession of the same and a wine-shop was being run in the tenanted premises. It was also claimed that such sub-letting, assigning or parting with the possession had been done by the tenants Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1376/2017 1 without obtaining any consent in writing from them.

3. The learned Rent Controller allowed the petition vide order dated 11.09.2015 on both the grounds. However, since it was reported to be the case of first default, the inquiry, in terms of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act was directed to be conducted.

4. Fact remains that there was a specific finding of subletting of the tenanted premises and it was noticed that the premises had been given by the tenants to Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC) in the year 1985. Observing that DTTDC had exclusive possession over the tenanted premises, the subletting was held proved against such tenants.

5. Such order was challenged by filing an appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act by the tenants which, too, was dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 14.11.2017. It, however, needs to be highlighted right here that the tenants had merely challenged the eviction on the ground of subletting before the learned Tribunal and did not challenge the eviction qua Section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act.

6. This is how the tenants have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. This Court, at the very outset, would be conscious of the confines and limitation within which any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be considered and the averments are to be appreciated. This Court cannot act as an Appellate Court and, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1376/2017 2 therefore, cannot go deeper into the facts and evaluation of evidence, unless there is complete perversity.

8. Admittedly, after the creation of tenancy in question, one license agreement was executed between the tenants and DTTDC on

16.07.1985.

9. Such license agreement was placed before the learned Controller and was also duly proved during the trial of the aforesaid eviction petition.

10. As per the above license agreement, the licensor i.e. the tenants/petitioners herein had given the suit premises to said Corporation for running a wine shop. It was also mentioned therein that the license had already been granted with effect from 26.02.1985 and the broad terms and conditions of the license agreement were being reduced in writing vide aforesaid license agreement. Such terms and conditions of license deed are as under:-

1. That the Licensor has granted permission to the licensee for use of the premises comprising portion of Shop No. 1897, Chandni Chowk, Delhi alongwith back magazine floor w.e.f. 26.2.1985.

2. That the licensor shall continue using Shop No. 1897, along with its separate entrance.

3. That the Licensee shall use the premises for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor under L-2 licence on rent compensation as the same are approved premises for selling liquor in accordance w