In Brief
The appellant-tenant was evicted on grounds of unauthorized sub-letting under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant claimed the respondent (occupying the shop premises) was an employee paid on commission, not a sub-tenant. The Supreme Court upheld the eviction, finding that the respondent had exclusive possession and conducted independent jewelry business operations with separate business registration and visiting cards in his own name. Once the landlord proved exclusive possession, the burden shifted to the tenant to disprove sub-letting, which he failed to do. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's eviction order.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.