Summary
The Court upheld eviction for subletting where business cards, admissions and subscriber records showed independent business and exclusive possession by the alleged subtenant. The tenant produced no evidence supporting his explanation of paid employment or commission-based assistance. Once the landlord made the required prima facie showing, the unrebutted circumstances permitted an inference of subletting without direct proof of secret monetary arrangements.
Issues
- How the burden of proving subletting and exclusive possession operates.
- Whether the evidence rebutted the asserted employee arrangement.
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1)(b), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958The reproduced ground permits eviction for subletting, assignment or parting with possession without the landlord’s written consent. (¶ 8)
Held
- The landlord initially bears the burden, on preponderance of probabilities, of showing exclusive possession by the third party. Upon a prima facie showing of parting with possession, the tenant must explain it and rebut subletting. (¶ 14–17)
- Because subletting arrangements and payments are commonly concealed from the landlord, monetary consideration need not be established by direct affirmative evidence and may be inferred from the facts. (¶ 18)
- The third party admitted his independent jewellery business and cards bearing his name at the premises; matching telephone-directory details supported the other business name too. No salary or commission evidence substantiated the tenant’s employee explanation, leaving the landlord’s showing unrebutted. (¶¶ 10–13, 19)
- The High Court correctly reversed the lower orders and upheld eviction on this record. (¶ 20)
Result
Tenant’s appeal dismissed; High Court eviction order upheld; no costs.