VAISHAKHI RAM AND ORS. versus SANJEEV KUMAR BHATIANI

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 377 · Decided: 25-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 3 S.C.R. 377 
,, I' 
VAISHAKHI RAM AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SANJEEV KUMAR BHATIANI 
(Civil Appeal No. 1559 Qf 2008) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2008 
B 
(TARUN CHATTERJEE & DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
y 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; S.14(1)(b): 
c 
Subletting - Appellant No.1-tenant allegedly subletting 
part of tenanted premises, a shop - Erstwhile owner of property! 
landlord selling the property in question to respondent -
Respondent filing eviction petition on ground of subletting -
Allowed by Rent Controller holding that appellant Nos.2 to 4 D 
carrying on business in a portion of suit premises - Appeal 
• 
-I 
dismissed by Tribunal - Challenge to - Dismissed by High 
Court- Correctness of- Held: Appellant Nos.2 to 4 inducted 
by appellant No.1 in a portion of suit premises without 
obtaining consent in writing either of the original landlord or E 
the present landlord - Sub-tenants were neither the family 
member of appellant No. 1 nor were they residing with him for 
a considerable period of time as a family member - Appellant 
No. 1 had no control over the business of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 
- Burden of proving subletting is on landlord - Since landlord 
F 
proved that sub-tenants were in exclusive possession of suit 
} 
premises, onus shifted on tenant to prove that there was no 
subletting - Appellant No. 1 failed to prove that there was no 
subletting of portion of the shop in question to appellant Nos. 2 
to 4 - There was no evidence on record to show relinquishment 
by the landlords benefit/right of eviction conferred on them by G 
the Statute - Hence, subletting by appellant No. 1 in favour of 
appellant Nos. 2 to 4 proved - No reason found to interfere 
with the judgment of the Courts below. 
-
377 
H 
378 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 3 S. C.R. 
A 
Appellant No.1 was inducted as a tenant by the 
erstwhile owners of the suit premises, a shop. The tenant 
was conducting the business from the same along with 
his brother. Later, another business was started in a 
portion of the suit shop in some other name. The original 
B owners sold the suit shop to one 'A'. However, the rent of 
the suit shop was deposited by appellant no.1 in the court 
in different proceedings. 'A' sold the suit shop to the 
respondent by a registered sale deed. The present owner, 
respondent, filed an eviction petition against appellant 
C No.1 under Section 14 (1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 
on the ground of subletting before the Rent Controller. 
The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition holding 
that appellant No.1 had sublet a portion of the suit shop 
in which the business was carried on by appellant Nos. 2 
0 to 4; that the case of subletting was duly proved as from 
the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, it was 
clear that an independent business was run by appellant 
Nos. 2 to 4; and that they were in exclusive possession 
of a portion of the suit shop. Aggrieved, the appellants 
filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, which 
E was dismissed by the appellate Tribunal. The appellants 
filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was 
dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellants-tenant contended that even if subletting 
F was done by the appellant no.1 in favour of appellant nos. 
'· " 
y 
2 to 4, then also, the respondent was not entitled to an "' 
order of eviction on the ground of subletting under 
Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act since appellant nos.2 to 4 have 
been carrying on business in the suit shop for a long time 
with the knowledge of the respondent-landlord as also 
G the erstwhile owner; that the ground of subletting for 
eviction of the appellants must be held to have been 
waived by the erstwhile owner/landlord and finally by the 
respondent, the present landlord as he had, at the time of - " 
his purchase, knowledge of the subletting; that appellant 
H 
VAISHAKHI RAM AND ORS. v. SANJEEV KUMAR 
379 
" , 
BHATIANI 
nos.2 to 4, being the family members of appellant no.1 
A 
and carrying on business by some other name in a part 
of the suit shop, the subletting as made out by the 
respondent for eviction cannot be said to have been 
proved; that the question of subletting of the suit shop to 
appellant Nos~ 2 to 4 could not arise as appellant No.1 
8 
had the exclusive possession and legal control of the 
r 
same; that the respondent, who is a subsequent 
purchaser of the suit shop was not entitled to take 
advantage of the ground of sublettin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.