LexKRISHNAWATI versus HANS RAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
524 KRISHNAWATJ v. HANS RAJ November 29, 1973 (D. G. PALEKAR, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. SARKAIUA, JJ.] Delhi Rent Control Act (59of1958) Ss. 14 and 39 (2}-0nus of provlnt sub·lettint -Mixed question of law and fact, what js, The appellant took a lease of shop premises from the respondent. From the time of letting, a chemist's business was carried on in the shop by S with the oocaaional help of the appellant. S and the appellant were living as husband and wife to tho knowledge of the respondent. The respondent applied under s. 14 of tho Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for eviction of the appellant on the lll'OUlld that she had sublet tho premises to S. The Rent Controller and tho Tribunal on appesl hold that the appellant and S. were living together as husband and Wile, and that therefore there was no question of any subletting by the ap~t. In second appeal , holding that two substantial questions of law were involved namely, one relating to the status of the appellant as the wife of S, and the other, whether sub- letting was established, the High Court concluded that there was subletting in favour of S. Allowing the appeal to this Court, HELD : (1) Under s. 39 (2) of the Act the High Court could interfere in second appeal only if there was a substantial question of-law. On the question whether the appellant was legally married no finding was necessary in the eviction suit. It was sufficient for the rent court to proceed on the finding that the appellant and S were living together as husband and wife, whether they were legally married · or not; [528C·D, ll-F] (2) The question whether there was subletting is not a mixed question of law and fact. In a mixed question of law and fact the ultimate conclusion has to be drawn by applying principles of law to basic findings, but in the determination of a question of fact no application of any principle of law is required in finding either the basic facts or in arriving at the ultimate conclusion. The question to be detennined in the circumstances of this case was whether it was likely that the appellant had sublet the premises to S. The negative answer given by the rent court is merely the factual common sense inference which did not c·an for the application of any principle of law. [528F-O; 529A·Bl Meenakshi Mills, Madurai v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, [19561 S.C.R. 691, followed. (3) When eviction is sought on the ground of subletting the onus of proving sub- letting is on the landlord. If the landlord prima-facie shows that the occupant was in the exclusive possession of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then .be for the tenant to rebut the evidence. But in the present case the respon- dent produced .no evidence to show subletting in spite of the appellant's denial in the written statement. [527C-D]. Associated Hotels of India Ltd. Delhi v. S. B. Sardar Ran}it Singh, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 548, followed. (4) Under s. 14 (4) premises could be deemed to have been sub-le.t by the tenant only when the Controller is satisfied that some peraon is let into possession ostensibly as a partner in business but really for the. purposes of subletting. This provision has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. [526G-H] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1475of1970. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 29th May, 1970 of the High Court of Delhi in Second Appeal No. 25-D of 1966. B c D E E G H 'A KRISHNAWAT! v. HANS RAJ (Palekar, !.) 525 V.M. Tarkunde, M. N. Bombhra and Saroja Gopala Krishnan for the appellant. Hardyal Hardy, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja, A. C. Sehgal and 0. P. Gupta for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B PALEKAR, J,-Thisis an appeal by special leave from an order passed by the single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, No. 59 of 1958. On or about September 10, 1959 the respondent landlord let out the premises in suit to the appellant on a -rent of Rs. 125/- per month. The premises consisted of a shop. On 1-9-1962 the respondent applied C under section 14 of the above ,Act to the Rent Controller, Delhi for evicting the appellant on the ground that she had sub-let the entire premises to one Sohan Singh who, according to the respondent, was running a business under the name of Royal Dispensing Chemists and Druggists
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.