Ashok Bhushan JUDGMENT
R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM. (M) No. 478 of 2014 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the eviction petition filed by the original owner-Respondent No. 1 herein while setting aside the judgments and orders dated 08.09.2011 and 24.03.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Rent Controller, North Delhi and the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, respectively.
3. Brief facts:
(a) Shri Santosh Kumar Jain-Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application for increase of standard rent and eviction of tenant being Eviction Petition No. 956 of 2007 before the Rent Controller, Delhi Under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act') on the ground that the premises in question, i.e., Shop No. 16 (Private No. 15), Gali Kunjas, Ward No. IV, Dariba Kalan, Delhi 110 006 has been sub-let, assigned and otherwise parted with possession illegally by the original tenant-the Appellant herein to his sub-tenant-Respondent No. 2 herein, who is in the unauthorized occupation of the same and is carrying on his own independent business and also that the original tenant-the Appellant herein is in arrears of rent from 01.01.2002.
(b) Learned Additional Rent Controller, North Delhi, vide judgment and order dated 08.09.2011 in E. No. 02/2009 dismissed the claim of eviction while directing the Appellant herein to deposit the rent as agreed for preceding 3 (three) years from the date of filing of the eviction petition.
(c) Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.09.2011, Respondent No. 1 went in appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The Rent Control Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 24.03.2014 in RCT-203/2013/2011, dismissed the appeal.
(d) The owner-Respondent No. 1 herein, aggrieved by the judgments and orders dated 08.09.2011 and 24.03.2014, filed a petition being C.M. (M) No. 478 of 2014 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 07.11.2014, allowed the petition filed by the owner-Respondent No. 1 herein.
(e) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 07.11.2014, the Appellant has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
4. Heard Mr. Braj K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Appellant-tenant and Ms. Bharati Tyagi, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Satish Kumar Jain - the original owner, Respondent No. 1 herein, argued in person.
Point for consideration:
5. The only point for consideration before this Court is whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case the order of eviction passed by the High Court was just and proper?
Rival Submissions:
6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-the tenant contended before this Court that Respondent No. 2 herein was looking after the entire small business affairs of the Appellant herein and is using and occupying the suit premises in the capacity of an employee. Learned Counsel further contended that the Appellant herein was paying commission by way of cash/cheque or as per the convenience and outcome of the business to Respondent No. 2 in lieu of his services. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 herein got the business cards printed for the promotion of the business of the Appellant herein. The Appellant herein ........