Vivekananda Institute

of Professional Studies
Vivekananda School of Law and
Legal Studies

Land Law Research Project

Topic- Prem Prakash vs Santosh Kumar Singh
& Sons
(2018) 12 SCC 637

Submitted To- Ms. Chitwan

Submitted By- Asheesh Kumar Shukla
Enrol. No.- 41017703816
Semester & Section- IX-E
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I have taken so much efforts in this project. However it cannot be completed without the support of
many individuals and organisations. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my teachers who
supported me throughout the completion of this project. It was only possible because of the kind of
support by the teachers who guided, monitored, and constantly encouraged me throughout of this
journey. I again want to thank each and every one of them.
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in this project report entitled “Prem Prakash vs Santosh
Kumar Singh & Sons” submitted to “Ms. Chitwan” is an outcome of my work carried out under the
supervision of me only. I have duly acknowledged the sources from which the ideas and extracts
have been taken. To the best of my understanding, the project is free from any plagiarism issue.

ASHEESH KUMAR SHUKLA

BA.LLB. IX-E
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. Contents Page

No. no.
1. Scope & Limitations 5
2. Hypothesis 6
3. Abstract 7
4. Introduction with facts 8
5. Issue 8
6. Argument by the parties 9
7. Court’s reasoning 10
8. Conclusion 11
 SCOPE

This research paper will highlight the issue in the case of sub tenancy. Also it will clarify the
discussion of the Supreme Court. What are the arguments in the lower courts by which they
refused the prayer of the original owner, and the high court accepted the argument of the owner on
what basis also without any direct evidence how can high court accept that the sub tenancy exists?
Also why Supreme Court stands with decisions of the high court.

LIMITATIONS

During the ambit of analysing the resources that the researcher had relied upon, it’s been strongly
felt that the ambit of this issue was unclear. The researcher will be working on the available
information on the various resources. The researcher will not look into deep static provisions
relating to the validation of sub tenancy.
 HYPOTHESIS

The burden of proof to prove the sub tenancy is always on the owner but when the owner proves it
the onus will shift towards the original tenant.
 ABSTRACT

In the present case Santosh Kumar Jain who is the owner of a property lend his property to
someone for the purpose of getting rent but after some time the tenant stops giving rent. Also it was
found that the tenant gave half of the premise to sub tenancy. The owner knock the door of
respective rent controller and also the rent control tribunal, but only he got was the rejection of
partial prayer.
Finally he appealed to the high court where his prayer was totally accepted and it was proved in the
high court that the original tenant lend the premise for the monetary purpose.
The aggrieved party who is the original tenant reached the Supreme Court through the special leave
petition, but the apex court after many arguments dismissed the appeal with costs.
 INTRODUCTION WITH FACTS

Santosh Kumar Jain- Respondent No. 1 herein filed an application for increase of ordinary rent and
eviction of tenant being Eviction Petition No. 956 of 2007 before the Rent Controller, Delhi under
Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the bottom that the premises in
question i.e. Shop No. 16 Gali Kunjas, Ward No. IV, Dariba Kalan, Delhi has been sub-let,
assigned and otherwise parted with possession illegally by the primary tenant. The appellant herein
to his sub-tenant, Respondent No. 2 herein, who is within the unauthorized occupation of an
equivalent and is carrying on his own independent business and also that the first tenant, the
appellant herein is in arrears of rent from 01.01.2002.
The Additional Rent Controller, North Delhi, dismissed the eviction claim and directed the
appellant herein to deposit the rent as consented for preceding 3 years from the date of filing of the
eviction petition. Being aggrieved by the order, Respondent 1 went in appeal before the Rent
Control Tribunal, Delhi. The Rent Control Tribunal, dismissed the appeal. The owner Respondent
1 herein, aggrieved by the judgments and orders filed a petition before the High Court. The learned
Single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 7-11-2014, allowed the petition
filed by the owner Respondent 1 herein.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 7-11-2014, the appellant has preferred this appeal by
way of special leave before this Court.1

ISSUE

The main issue before this Court was whether in the present facts and scenario of the case the
eviction order passed by the High Court was just and proper?

1
Prem Prakash vs Santosh Kumar Singh & Sons, (2018) 12 SCC 637
 ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES

The learned counsel for the appellant tenant contended before this Court that Respondent 2 herein
was taking care of the whole small business affairs of the appellant herein and is using and
occupying the suit premises within the capacity of an employee. The learned counsel again argued
that the appellant herein was giving commission by way of cash/cheque or as per the convenience
and outcome of the business to Respondent 2 in responsibility of his service. Respondent 2 told he
got the business cards printed for the promotion of the business of the appellant. The original
tenant who is also appellant here told that he is a lawful tenant and has never divided with the
possession or sub-let the suit property either to Respondent 2 or to the other person and he did not
get any notice of demand as cited here.
The learned counsel further contended that Respondent 2 is only a friend of the appellant herein
and for this reason only he was employed and allowed to sit in the disputed property and no
business is being carried out in the name of M/s R.R Jewellers from the suit premises by
Respondent 2 who is imagined to have changed the firm's name as “M/s Ashima Jewellery”
afterward. The learned counsel for the appellant herein finally contended that this petition isn't
maintainable and therefore the Supreme Court has committed a grave illegality in allowing the
eviction petition.
Shri Santosh Kumar Jain, the original owner, Respondent 1 herein argued in person and submitted
that the appellant herein had sub-let, assigned and parted with the possession of the suit premises in
favour of Respondent 2 herein, who is in illegal and unauthorised possession of the same. The
Respondent no.1 further add that though the appellant has claimed that Respondent 2 was
employee of him and was being paid commission for the job booked by him, no document has been
produced on record to show that Respondent 2 was being paid any salary or commission by the
appellant. Respondent 1 further stressed upon the point that the sub-tenant has admitted to have
fixed a billboard under the name and style of “M/s R.R. Jewellers” in the suit premises. Also, the
alleged sub-tenant of the original tenant also appellant herein got printed visiting cards in his name
with the address of the disputed property and the same has been admitted in the statement given by
him.
Respondent 1 further submitted that, undoubtedly, the onus of proving the presence of other person
in the suit premises is on the owner and once it is proved, it shifts to the tenant to disprove the
same. Respondent 1 finally submitted that High Court was right in allowing the eviction petition
while setting aside the judgments and orders passed by the Court of Additional Rent Controller and
Rent Control Tribunal decided that the suit premises was sub-let and the original tenant had parted
with the possession and prayed that no interference is sought for by this Court in the case.

COURT’S REASONING

The Respondent no.1 the owner has placed on record two business cards which do not have
appellant's name at all, showing the same address as that of the property in question in order to
prove that Respondent 2 was doing independent business of diamond jewellery, gold and stones.
Out of two cards, one card is in the name of Respondent 2 with the printing “Ashima Jewellery,
Diamond Jewellery, Gold & Stones”. Respondent 2 has admitted by way of filing an affidavit that
he was doing the business of manufacturing of diamond jewellery, silver articles and also silver
fancy articles. He further admitted that printing of the cards placed on record for the object of
placing orders at the said address. He admitted to have been doing business in the name and style
of M/s Ashima Jewellery.
A bare perusal of the visiting card of M/s Ashima Jewellery having the name of Respondent 2
clearly proves that the sub-tenant was neither an employee nor was looking after the appellant's
customer in his absence but he was carrying on his personal business under such name. There is no
point in denying the fact that why a tenant will allow a person, who is working under him, to print
visiting cards in his name for the property in question.
Undoubtedly, the initial burden to prove that the sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the
property is on the owner, however, the onus to prove the exclusive possession of the sub-tenant is
that of preponderance of probability only and he has to prove the same prima facie only and if he
succeeds then the burden to rebut the same lies on the tenant.
In this regard, it's appropriate to quote a choice of this Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v.
S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh2 wherein it had been held that when eviction is sought on the bottom of
sub-letting, the onus to prove sub-letting is on the owner. If the owner clear shows that the
occupant who was in exclusive possession of the premises let loose for valuable consideration, it
might then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence.

2
AIR 1968 SC 933
Again, in Kala v. Madho Parshad Vaidya3, this Court held the similar principle. It was concluded
that the burden of proof of sub-tenancy is on the owner but once he proves parting of possession by
the tenant to third party, the onus would shift on the tenant to elucidate his possession. If he's
unable to discharge that onus, it's permissible for the court to boost an inference that such
possession was for monetary consideration.
In the present facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the original owner,
Respondent 1 herein, has proved beyond doubt that the property is in exclusive possession of the
sub-tenant and the appellant herein has not been able to deny the claim of sub-tenancy in favour of
Respondent 2. The absence of evidence and failure to discharge the onus lay heavy on appellant
and there could be no presumption other than that the suit premises had been sub-let and parted
with possession by the appellant herein to Respondent 2.

CONCLUSION

In view of the present discussion, the court was of opinion that the High Court was correct in
setting aside the orders passed by the lower courts. They do not intend to interfere in the order4
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. No merit needed in this appeal, therefore, the
appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

3
(1998) 6 SCC 573
4
Santosh Kumar Jain & Sons (HUF) v. Prem Prakash, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6415