2022 (2) TMI 1438 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction Petition - Seeking recovery of possession of a shop room - sub-letting without consent of the landlord - Whether the decision of the High Court in upsetting the order of eviction passed by the Appellate Tribunal suffered from any element of perversity or not - HELD THAT - We have considered the submissions of the respective counsel and also gone through the decisions of the fact-finding fora and also that of the High Court. At this stage we cannot revisit the factual aspects of the dispute. Nor can we re-appreciate evidence to assess the quality thereof which has been considered by the two fact-finding fora. The view of the forum of first instance was reversed by the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court was conscious of the restrictive nature of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the judgment under appeal it has been recorded that it could not subject the decision of the appellate forum in a manner which would project as if it was sitting in appeal. It proceeded on such observation being made to opine that it was the duty of the supervisory Court to interdict if it was found that findings of the appellate forum were perverse. In our opinion the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the judgment under appeal had gone deep into the factual arena to disagree with the final fact-finding forum. There is no dispute that the three medical practitioners were in occupation of part of the premises in question. The onus under such circumstances was on the respondents to establish the degree of control they were maintaining over the said premises for repelling the plea of sub-letting or assignment or parting with possession. From the passage of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Sales Ltd 1998 (2) TMI 619 - SUPREME COURT it transpires that it was also the respondents obligation to demonstrate that there was no monetary consideration on the basis of which the medical practitioners were allowed to operate from the subject premises. Though it was a chemist shop evidence reveals that the portion of the premises of which the three medical practitioners were in occupation consisted of individual cabins and had separate telephone connections. There was no perversity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of which the High Court could have interfered. In our view the High Court tested the legality of the order of the Tribunal through the lens of an appellate body and not as a supervisory Court in adjudicating the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This is impermissible. The finding of the High Court that the appellate forum s decision was perverse and the manner in which such finding was arrived at was itself perverse. Thus we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore the Appellate Tribunal s findings. The appeal stands allowed

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the act of the respondents in inducting three medical practitioners constituted sub-letting.
2. The scope of High Court's interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The burden of proof and the nature of evidence required to establish sub-letting.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the act of the respondents in inducting three medical practitioners constituted sub-letting:
The appellant, as the landlord, sought eviction under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the grounds of sub-letting without consent. The respondents were accused of sub-letting portions of the premises to three medical practitioners. The Additional Rent Controller initially dismissed the petition, finding no evidence of sub-letting. However, the Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision, concluding that the respondents had indeed sub-let the premises to the medical practitioners. The Tribunal based its decision on the exclusive possession of the premises by the doctors, the presence of individual cabins, and separate telephone connections, which indicated a sub-letting arrangement. The Tribunal emphasized that the arrangement between the tenant and the doctors must have involved monetary consideration, even if not directly proven.

2. The scope of High Court's interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India:
The respondents challenged the Appellate Tribunal's decision in the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the Tribunal's order and restoring the Rent Controller's decision. The High Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion of exclusive possession by the doctors was not supported by evidence and was based on surmises. The High Court emphasized that the tenant maintained full control over the premises and that the presence of the doctors was temporary and permissive. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court overstepped its supervisory jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence, which is not permissible under Article 227. The Supreme Court restored the Appellate Tribunal's findings, stating that the High Court's interference was unwarranted as there was no perversity in the Tribunal's order.

3. The burden of proof and the nature of evidence required to establish sub-letting:
The Supreme Court highlighted the principles from previous judgments regarding sub-letting. It reiterated that the landlord must prove that a third party was in exclusive possession of the premises and that parting of possession was for monetary consideration. Once the landlord establishes parting of possession, the onus shifts to the tenant to explain the nature of the third party's occupation. The Supreme Court referred to the cases of Ram Murti Devi, Flora Elias Nahoum, and Bharat Sales Ltd., emphasizing that the landlord need not prove monetary consideration by direct evidence, and the court can infer sub-letting from the facts of the case. In the present case, the occupation of the premises by the doctors, the exclusive nature of their use, and the presence of individual facilities led to the inference of sub-letting.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Appellate Tribunal's findings, granting the appellant's plea for eviction. The respondents were directed to vacate the premises within 53 weeks and pay occupation charges of rupees thirty thousand per month until vacating. The respondents were also required to provide an undertaking to vacate the premises by 28.02.2023 and not create any third-party rights in the meantime. The appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.