Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, where a landlord sought to evict his tenant from shop premises on the ground of subletting. The tenant, a woman, had taken the shop on rent in 1959, and from the beginning a chemist's business was run there by Sohan Singh, with whom she was living as husband and wife. The landlord alleged that she had sublet the entire premises to Sohan Singh without written consent and was charging a high rent. The tenant denied subletting, stating that Sohan Singh was her husband and she only occasionally helped in the business. The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal both found that the two were living together as husband and wife and therefore there was no subletting. In second appeal, the High Court reversed these concurrent findings, holding that two substantial questions of law were involved—one on the status of the appellant as wife and the other on whether subletting was established—and concluded that subletting had occurred. The Supreme Court allowed the tenant's appeal. It held that under Section 39(2) of the Act, the High Court could interfere only on a substantial question of law, but the issue whether subletting occurred was a pure question of fact, not a mixed question of law and fact. The court emphasized that subletting is a particular type of demise distinct from permissive user, and when two persons live as husband and wife and one allows the other to carry on business, it would be a rash inference to draw subletting absent contrary evidence. The court further held that the onus to prove subletting lay on the landlord, who produced no evidence of exclusive possession or valuable consideration; the landlord's attempt to prove the appellant was not legally married was irrelevant, and earlier self-serving statements could not be used as substantive evidence. The deeming provision under Section 14(4) regarding ostensible partnership did not apply because there was no allegation that the tenant was the owner of the business and had let the other person in as a partner. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the orders of the Rent Controller and Tribunal, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 39(2) - The High Court in second appeal can interfere only if a substantial question of law arises; whether subletting by tenant to spouse occurred is a pure question of fact based on common sense inference, not a mixed question of law and fact. The Rent Controller and Tribunal concurrently held no subletting because appellant and Sohan Singh lived as husband and wife; the High Court reversed by treating it as involving questions of law. Held that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere and its order is set aside (Paras 4-6, 13-14). B) Evidence - Onus of Proof - Subletting - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(b) - The onus to prove subletting lies on the landlord; if the landlord prima facie shows exclusive possession for valuable consideration, the tenant must rebut. Here the landlord produced no evidence of exclusive possession or consideration, and his own testimony showed no talks of subletting and no rent paid in his presence. The landlord's attempt to prove appellant was not legally married was irrelevant; previous self-serving statements could not be used substantively. Held that landlord failed to discharge onus and concurrent finding of no subletting stands (Paras 10-12, 13). C) Interpretation - Deemed Subletting - Business Premises - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(4) - Deemed subletting under Section 14(4) requires satisfaction that the tenant allowed another to occupy ostensibly as partner but really for subletting. It was not alleged that the appellant was the owner of the business and let Sohan Singh in as partner; therefore Section 14(4) had no application. Held that High Court erred in relying on Section 14(4) to presume subletting from the marital relationship (Paras 7-9). D) Landlord and Tenant - Subletting vs Permissive User - Inference from Cohabitation - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(b) - Subletting is a distinct type of demise, different from permissive user like licensee. Where two persons live as husband and wife and one allows the other to carry on business in part of premises, absent other evidence it is a rash inference to draw subletting. The high court's inference of subletting merely because the wife was entitled to possession as tenant and the husband ran a chemist business was erroneous. Held that living as husband and wife does not establish subletting (Paras 6-7, 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in second appeal under Section 39(2) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, erred in interfering with concurrent findings of fact that there was no subletting; whether the landlord discharged onus of proving subletting under Section 14(1)(b); whether Section 14(4) deeming provision applied to husband and wife living together; whether living as husband and wife raised a presumption of subletting.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; orders of Rent Controller and Tribunal restored; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Under Section 39(2) Delhi Rent Control Act
- 1958
- High Court can interfere in second appeal only on substantial question of law
- question whether subletting occurred is pure question of fact
- not mixed question of law and fact
- onus to prove subletting lies on landlord
- if landlord prima facie shows exclusive possession for valuable consideration
- tenant must rebut
- Section 14(4) deeming provision requires satisfaction that possession given ostensibly as partner but really for subletting
- no application to spouse running business
- subletting is distinct type of demise
- different from permissive user like licensee
- living as husband and wife does not raise presumption of subletting
- previous self-serving statements cannot be used as substantive evidence
