The companyrts below were fully justified in holding that subletting as alleged was proved since the appellant No.1 had failed to prove that the appellant Nos.
The Rent Controller passed the order of eviction by holding, inter alia, that the case of subletting was duly proved as from the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, it was clear that an independent business was run by the appellant Nos.
III 1/9, Gopi Nath Bazar, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi in short the suit shop was affirmed on the ground of subletting under Section 14 1 b of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for short the Act .
Against this order of the Rent Control Tribunal, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi and the High Court by the impugned judgment also dismissed the same.
Subsequently, a business was started in a portion of the suit shop in the name of M s. Mitra Stores and M s. Lucky Confectioners.
However, the appellant number1 went on depositing the rent in the name of the original landlord.
The appellant number1 was inducted as a tenant in the year 1956 by the erstwhile owners of the suit shop, viz.,
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, which also dismissed the same by affirming the findings of the Rent Controller.
Som Nath and Mohinder Nath.
Accordingly, the respondent sought for eviction of the appellants on the ground of subletting.
According to the respondent, although the tenancy was given to the appellant number1 in the name of M s Mitra Book Depot but subsequently, the appellant number1 had sublet the suit shop to the appellant Nos.
On 20th of October, 2000, Anil Anand sold the suit shop to the respondent by a registered deed of sale.
The rent receipts issued by the landlord were in the name of M s Mitra Book Depot as tenant at the rate of Rs.65/ per month.
2 to 4, then also, the respondent was number entitled to an order of eviction on the ground of subletting under Section 14 1 b of the Act for the simple reason that since the appellant number.2 to 4 have been carrying on their business in the suit shop for a long time with the knowledge of the respondent as also the erstwhile owner, the ground of subletting for eviction of the appellants must be held to have been waived by the erstwhile landlord of the appellant number1 and finally by the respondent as he had, at the time of his purchase, knowledge of the subletting.
1 for a companysiderable period of time as members of the family of the appellant No.1.
2 to 4 and that they were in exclusive possession of a portion of the suit shop.
After the issues were framed and the evidence was adduced, the Rent Controller held on facts that the appellant No.1 had sublet a portion of the suit shop in which the business in the name of M s Mitra Stores and M s Lucky Confectioners was carried on by the appellant Nos.
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1559 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.2478 of 2007 TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
2 to 4 who were carrying on the business in a portion of the suit shop in the name of M s Mitra Stores and M s Lucky Confectioners.
On behalf of the appellants, at the first instance, Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal companytended that even if subletting was done by the appellant number1 in favour of the appellant number.
In the year 2000, Som Nath and Mohinder Nath sold the suit shop to one Anil Anand.
A written statement was filed by the appellants denying the material allegations made in the eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller, Delhi by the respondent.
2 to 4 were number companyducting their business in the suit shop independently but in fact doing the business of the appellant No.1 or assisting him.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the High Court, the instant special leave petition has been filed, in respect of which leave has already been granted.
Finally, on or about 1st of February, 2002, the respondent filed an eviction petition under Section 14 1b of the Act on the ground of subletting before the Rent Controller, Delhi.
He was all along in companytinuous possession of the suit shop and was companyducting the business from the same along with his brother Chunni Lal of Chunni Lal and Sons under the name and style of M s Mitra Book Depot.
2 to 4 and, therefore, the appellants were liable to be evicted under Section 14 1b of the Act.
1, held that it companyld number be proved by companyent evidence that there was numbersubletting.
Both the companyrts below, namely, the Rent Controller and the appellate authority, on companysideration of the entire evidence on record, including the admission of the appellant No.1 in respect of the business carried on in a part of the suit shop in the name of M s. Mitra Stores and in the name of M s. Lucky Confectioners and in view of the onus having been shifted to the appellant No.
This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 23rd of January, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in CM M No.126 of 2007 whereby the eviction of the appellants from a shop bearing No.
However, the rent of the suit shop was companytinued to be paid to Som Nath and Mohinder Nath by the appellant number1 upto the month of September 2000.
Thereafter, the rent was deposited by the appellant number1 in the companyrt in different proceedings.
