J.V.GUPTA,J - (1.) THIS is landlady's revision petition whose ejectment application has been dismissed by both the authorities below.
(2.) THE shop in dispute, was let out to Devi Dayal on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- for running ration depot in the year 1966. Later on the rent was raised to Rs. 70/- per month. The landlady Kaushalya Devi sought the ejectment of her tenant from the shop, in dispute, inter alia on the ground that the tenant Devi Dayal had sublet the same to his son Chander Bhan who was in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute whereas Devi Dayal tenant was running his separate business in a shop owned by his wife. The second ground of ejectment was that the tenant had changed the user of the building. The same was let out for doing Kiryana business whereas now the business of repairing radios was carried out therein. The stand taken by the tenant was that the premises had not been sublet, as alleged. Respondent No. 2 Chander Bhan, was his real son and he had joined hands with him in the business for the last more than 10 years. Both of them constituted a joint Hindu family. Therefore, the question of subletting did not arise. It was denied that there was any change of user, as alleged in the ejectment application. The learned Rent Controller appointed a local commissioner vide order August 20, 1982, directing him to visit the spot and to report about the name of the occupant of the shop and also to report as to what business was being carried on in the demised premises. Accordingly, he filed his report dated August 23, 1982, wherein he stated :- "That the subject-matter of dispute is a shop where one Chander Bhan, s/o Devi Dayal is running a Radio mechanic shop and he was found sitting and repairing a radio. This shop is being run under the style Chhabra Radios, Chhota Bazar, Thanesar. There were shelves of wood on three sides, i.e., on Eastern, Western and Northern walls in the shop and spare parts of Radio sets and a few new sets of transistors were found put in the shelves." The learned Rent Controller took the view that no evidence had been adduced by the landlady to prove that the shop, in dispute, had been sublet by the tenant for respondent No. 2. According to the learned Rent Controller, Chander Bhan, respondent, was married in the year 1983 and prior to that, he was a bachelor and he used to reside with his parents. The presumption goes in favour of the respondents that they were the members of the joint Hindu family. The plea of the change of user was also negatived. Consequently, the ejectment application was dismissed vide order dated October 11, 1986. In appeal, the Appellate Authority affirmed the said findings of the Rent Controller and, thus, maintained the order dismissing the ejectment application. The learned counsel for the landlady-petitioner submitted that from the evidence on the record, it was amply proved that the licence for repairing radios is in the exclusive name of Chander Bhan and it was he who was carrying on the business in the demised premises. Devi Dayal, respondent, was running his own shop separately which is owned by his wife and that he was no more in occupation of the demised premises in any manner. The exclusive possession was that of Chander Bhan, respondent. According to the learned counsel, even if they were joint in residence and mess, there was no presumption that the business carried on by his son Chander Bhan was joint in any manner with his father Devi Dayal; particularly when evidence had been led that he was the sole proprietor of the business run in the name of Chhabra Radios. The plea taken by the tenant that in the rear portion of the shop goods belonging to the tenant Devi Dayal were lying was not substantiated, nor was it so found by the local commissioner in his report. Thus, argued the learned counsel, since the exclusive possession was that of Chander Bhan it was a clear case of subletting. In support of the contention the learned counsel relied upon Murthy M.V. v. H.R.A. Controller, 1985(2) RCR 538; Sushma Malhotra v. Prem Nath, 1986(1) RCR 347 and Sunita Rani v. Subhash Chander, 1986(1) RCR 613.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the tenant submitted that since the father and the son formed a joint Hindu family, the question of subletting did not arise. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan, 1988(1) RCR 629, wherein it was observed that so long as the tenant retains the right to possession there is no parting with possession in terms of clause (b) of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. According to the learned counsel in the present case since the tenant had the right to retain the possession there was no parting of the possession in terms of the statute and, therefore, the question of subletting did not arise. The learned counsel also referred to Mohinder Pal Singh v. Smt. Bhupinder Kaur and others, 1986(1) RCR 177, 1986 HRR 67 and Gurbir Singh v Ram Singh, 1986 RCR (Supp.) 549, 1986(1) Rent Law Reporter 28 to contend that where the father and the son form a joint Hindu family, the question of subletting did not arise.;