Bhairon Sahai (D) Thr. LRs. v. Bishamber Dayal (D) Thr. LRs.
Background
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant from a small Karol Bagh shop under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging the tenant had sublet/parted with possession of part of the premises without the landlord's consent. The shop had, since 1964, housed a government-licensed fair-price (ration) shop whose formal licence was held by a second person (not the tenant himself), while the tenant ran a separate provision store in the remaining portion; the two later entered into a formal partnership in 1977. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, but the Rent Control Tribunal and the Delhi High Court both reversed that decision in the tenant's favour, prompting the landlord's appeal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the evidence clearly showed the tenant had allowed another person (the ration-shop licensee) to occupy and run a business from part of the premises since 1964, decades before any partnership was formalised in 1977, and that this had happened without the landlord's written consent at any stage: squarely triggering Section 14(1)(b) read with Section 14(4) of the Act. The Court clarified that once parting with possession without consent is established, it is unnecessary to separately examine whether the later partnership itself was genuine or a sham. It held the lower appellate courts and High Court erred in focusing only on the partnership deed instead of the earlier, undisputed parting of possession. The appeal was allowed, the eviction decree restored, and the tenants directed to vacate within two months.
Lesson Learnt
A tenant who lets someone else occupy and run a business from part of the rented premises without the landlord's written consent can be evicted for "parting with possession", and this is true even if, years later, the parties dress up the arrangement as a formal partnership.