Summary
The appellate rent tribunal ordered eviction for subletting portions of a chemist’s shop to medical practitioners. The High Court reversed it under Article 227 after reassessing the evidence. The Court held that the tribunal’s findings were not perverse and that supervisory jurisdiction did not permit an appellate reappraisal. It restored the eviction findings, granted conditional time to vacate by 28 February 2023, and directed occupation charges and staged payment of arrears.
Issues
- Whether the High Court exceeded Article 227 by reassessing the tribunal’s subletting findings.
- How the evidence of occupation and monetary consideration bore on the burden of proof.
- What conditions governed the time allowed to vacate.
Provisions considered
- Article 227, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court exceeded supervisory limits by substituting its factual assessment for the tribunal’s non-perverse findings. (¶ 10-14)
- Section 14(1)(b), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958The tribunal’s eviction finding on unauthorised subletting was restored. (¶ 8-14)
Held
- The landlord initially bears the burden of proving subletting. Proof of parting with possession shifts the explanatory burden to the tenant, and monetary consideration may be inferred from established facts rather than requiring direct proof of a concealed arrangement. (¶ 8-9)
- The practitioners’ occupation was admitted. Individual cabins, separate telephones and the nature of their use supported the tribunal’s conclusions; the tenants had to explain their retained control and the claimed absence of consideration. The tribunal’s view was not perverse. (¶¶ 10, 12-13)
- Supervisory intervention may address failure to consider material evidence, conclusions contrary to evidence or legally impermissible inferences. The High Court instead reappreciated the evidence as an appellate court, exceeding that boundary. (¶ 10-14)
- Occupation charges of Rs.30,000 per month were payable from 14 November 2018 until vacation. Rs.1 lakh was due within one month, Rs.12 lakh within six months, and any further amount due on computation within six months; ongoing monthly charges were payable by each month’s last date. (¶ 15-16)
- Time to remain was unconditional for one month, within which an affidavit undertaking to deliver vacant possession by 28 February 2023 had to be filed. No third-party rights could be created. The appeal was allowed without costs. (¶ 16-19)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and tribunal’s eviction findings restored. Conditional time to vacate by 28 February 2023 granted, subject to undertaking and specified occupation-charge payments. No costs.