SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) The respondent filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act') against the petitioner Corporation on grounds of sub-letting. The respondent claimed to be the landlord of property bearing No. XI-4579/15, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, which was stated to be let out to the petitioner by a registered Lease Deed dated 28.02.1940. The rate of rent was stated to be Rs.196.44 besides electricity and water charges. The petitioner was alleged to have sub-let and parted with possession of the premises after 09.06.1952 without prior consent of the respondent. Such sub-letting was alleged in favour of Rajinder Matka Store stated to be run by S/Shri Rajinder Kumar and Om Parkash. The petition was resisted by the petitioner Corporation and various preliminary objections were taken. The site-plan was also denied and it was alleged that the tenanted premises were situated in slum area and no permission had been obtained under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 ( for short, 'the Slum Areas Act' ). The status of the petitioner as tenant was not denied nor the rate of rent. The premises were being used for running a primary school from the inception of the tenancy and sub-tenancy or sub-letting was denied.
(2.) The Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as 'ARC') after recording evidence of the parties and hearing submissions found that the parting of possession to third-parties was proved and the presence of such third-parties had not been explained by the petitioner Corporation. The eviction petition was allowed. The petitioner Corporation thereafter preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal ( hereinafter to be referred to as, 'The Tribunal' ) under Section 38 of the said Act, which provides for an appeal only on a question of law. The appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 04.09.2006. The petitioner Corporation has now filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) In order to appreciate the contours of the controversy, the relevant provisions are being reproduced hereunder :- "14. Protection of tenant against eviction " 1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:- (b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;" "16. Restrictions on sub letting " 1) where at any time before the 9th day of June, 1952, a tenant has sublet the whole or any part of the premises and the sub tenant is, at the commencement of this Act, in occupation of such premises, then notwithstanding that the consent of the landlord was not obtained for sub sub-letting, the premises shall be deemed to have been lawfully sub let. 2) No premises which have been sub let either in whole or in part on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord, shall be deemed to have been lawfully sub let. 3) After the commencement of this Act, no tenant shall, without the previous consent in writing of the landlord - a) sub-let the whole or any part of the premises held by him as a tenant; or b) transfer or assign his rights in the tenancy or in any part thereof. 4) No landlord shall claim or receive the payment of any sum as premium or pugree or claim or receive any consideration whatsoever in cash or in kind for giving his consent to the sub-letting of the whole or any part of the premises held by the tenant.";