9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, No. 59 of 1958 regarding sub-letting and possession. - Determination of sub-letting in the absence of evidence. - Burden of proof in eviction cases based on sub-letting allegations. - Evaluation of evidence in establishing sub-letting. - Applicability of legal principles in determining mixed questions of law and fact. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by special leave from an order passed by the single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in a second appeal under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, No. 59 of 1958. The respondent landlord alleged that the appellant had sub-let the premises to her husband, Sohan Singh, who was running a business in the shop. The Rent Controller and Rent Control Tribunal held that there was no sub-letting as the appellant and Sohan Singh were living as husband and wife. The High Court, however, found in favor of sub-letting, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in interfering with the concurrent finding of fact without any substantial question of law. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that sub-letting is distinct from permissive user and should not be presumed without evidence. The High Court wrongly relied on provisions of the Act that were not applicable to the facts of the case. In cases where eviction is sought based on sub-letting, the burden of proof lies with the landlord to establish sub-letting. Despite the respondent's allegations, no evidence was produced to prove sub-letting, and the appellant denied any such arrangement. The evidence presented, including the appellant and Sohan Singh's testimony, indicated a husband-wife relationship and joint business operation, not sub-letting. The Rent Courts' findings were based on factual inference and common sense, not legal principles. The High Court's decision to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact was deemed erroneous as no substantial question of law was involved. The judgment highlighted that the legal status of marriage was irrelevant in an eviction suit, and the determination of sub-letting was a factual matter, not a mixed question of law and fact. As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the decision of the Rent Control Authorities with costs throughout.
|
