PREM PRAKASH versus SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2017] 9 S.C.R. 408 · Decided: 30-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 408 
PREM PRAKASH 
v. 
SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND ANOTHER 
(CivilAppealNo. 11106of2017) 
AUGUST 30, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.) 
Delhi Rent Control Act. 1958 - s. 4(J)(a), (b) - Eviction petition 
filed by the owner-respondent no. I against the tenant-appeflant on 
C the ground that the premises in question was sub-let by the appellant 
to his sub-tenant-respondent no. 2 - Eviction petition dismissed by 
the Rent Controller - Appeal by respondent no.1 before the Rent 
Control Tribunal. dismissed - Petition filed by the respondent no. 1 
challenging the said order allowed by High Court - On appeal, 
held: In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the 
D respondent no. J has proved beyond doubt that the property was in 
exclusive possession of respondent no. 2 while the appellant was 
not able to deny sub-tenancy in favour of respondent no. 2 - The 
burden to discharge the onus was on appellant, however, it failed 
to discharge the said burden - There could be no presumption other 
E than that appellant sub-let the suit premises and parted with 
possession to respondent no. 2 - High Court was right in setting 
aside the orders passed by the lower courts - No interference in the 
order passed by High Court. 
Rent Control and Eviction - Sub-tenancy - Burden ofproof -
F Held: The initial burden to prove that the sub-tenant is in exclusive 
possession of the property is 011 the ow11e1; however such burden is 
that of preponderance of probability only and if he succeeds then 
the burden to rebut the same lies on the tenant. 
G 
H 
Words & Phrases - 'Sub-tenancy '/'sub-letting· - Meaning of 
- Explained. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 't.. Respondent No. 1-the original owner has placed 
on record two bu.sine~s cards which do not contain the name of 
the appellant-tenant at all, showing the same address as that of 
408 
PREM PRAKASH v. SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 
409 
AND ANOTHER 
the property in question in order to prove that Respondent No. 2 A 
was doing independent business of diamond jewellery, gold and 
stones. A bare perusal of the visiting card having the name of 
Respondent No. 2 clearly proves that the sub-tenant wns neither 
an employee nor was looking after the customers of the appellant 
In. his absence but he was carrying on his personal business. 
There is no point in denying the fact that why a tenant will 
B 
allow a person, who is working under him, to print visiting cards 
in his (sub-tenant) name for the property in question. [Paras 11, 
12)(414-G-H; 415-C-D] 
2.1 The initial burden to prove that the sub-tenant is in 
exclusive possession of the property is on the owner, however, 
C 
the onus to prove the exclusive possession of the sub tenant is 
that of preponderance of probability only and he has to prove the 
same prima /acie only and if he succeeds then the burden to rebut 
the same lies on the tenant. [Para 14][415-H; 416-A] 
· 2.2 Sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when 
the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, 
wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession 
thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual 
agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person 
D 
to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the 
E 
landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted 
behind the back or the landlord, concealing the overt acts and 
transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter 
stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not 
let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or 
consented to his entering into possession of that person, instead 
F 
of'the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord_ that the_ 
tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person 
in possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be 
difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract0 
or agreement or understanding between the .tenant and the sub-
G 
tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct 
evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sub-let 
had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, 
undoubteclly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease. It may 
be paid in cash or.in- kind or may have been paid or promised to 
H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A be paid. It may have been pai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.