BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS Vs. S RAJDEV SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal is Bhagwan Dass, who is a tenant in the premises No. 55-G, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, of the respondent, Rajdev Singh at Rs. 131.40 per month On 1-11-1963 he entered into an agreement with Usha Sales (Pvt.) Ltd., which is the appellant in SAO 256 of 1969. By this agreement the premises were to be used exclusively for the display and sale of the Usha Products. The agreement is exhibit RW4/12. The landlord, Rajdev Singh, who is respondent No. 1 in both the appeals, made an application to the Rent Controller for the eviction of both the appellants on the ground that the tenant, Bhagwan Dass had sublet or parted with possession of the premises to Usha Sales (Pvt) Ltd. and, therefore, the landlord was entitled to evict both of them under the provisions of proviso (b) to section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act). Both the appellants resisted the application for eviction on the ground that Bhagwan Dass acted as an agent and stockest of Usha Sales and that he was in legal possession of the premises. In support of the defence, the appellants relied not only on the main agreement dated 1-11-1963, exhibit RW4/12, but also on certain additions made to the said agreement in ink on the agreement itself and by a letter written by Usha Sales to Bhagwan Dass on the same day, viz., 1-11-1963 Oral evidence also was adduced on both the sides

(2.) Both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal held that the agreement between the parties was constituted by the deed dated 1-11-1963 at exhibit RW4/12, but the portions written thereon in ink and the letter dated 1-11-1963 were later additions made by the appellants to show that the Premises had not been sublet and the possession thereof was not parted with. These later additions were collusive and not reliable. Both the learned lower courts held that the business in the premises was carried on exclusively by Usha Sales and that the tenant was being paid a rent of Rs. 2,000 per month by Usha Sales and the tenant had no control over the premises with the result that the premises were, thus, sublet by the tenant to Usha Sales. They, therefore, ordered the eviction of both the appellants from the premises. The appellant Bhagwan Doss had made an application before the Rent Control Tribunal under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to adduce additional evidence consisting of account books and other documents in the possession of Usha Sales This application was rejected on the ground that no explanation had been given by the appellant for not having produced the said document at the proper stage, nor were these documents necessary for the court to decide the case. Hence these two second appeals by the tenant Bhagwan Dass and Usha Sales Private Limited.

(3.) The only question for decision is whether the agreement dated 1-11-1963 between the appellants amounted to a subletting or parting with possession of the premises.