DULI CHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. v. JAGMENDER DASS

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 465

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: L.M. SHARMA, V. RAMASWAMI

Case summary

of the Delhi Rent Control Act, this Court further held that the requirement as to the consent being in writing was in the public interest and that, therefore, there cannot be any question of waiver of a right, dealing with the rights of the tenants or landlord....

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V. RAMASWAMI, J. The tenant is the appellant. The respondent-landlord filed a petition under section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an order of eviction of the appellant-tenant for a shop bearing No. 361 (Old No. DULi CHAND v. JAGMENDER IV. RAMASWAMI, J. ] 467 25-A) Azadpur, G. T. Road, Delhi, on the ground that the tenant-Duli Chand has sub-let or parted with the possession of the said shop after 9th day of June, 1952 to Mis Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan illegally and without the written consent of the landlord. The main contention of the tenant was that there was no sub-letting or parting withJhe possession of the shop, that Hira Lal was a relative of the tenant who died some time prior to 1958, that Sri Bhagwan is the son of the tenant, and that the name of the business was given as Mis Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan in memory of the deceased relative Hira Lal.

He further pleaded that the pos3ession of the shop is with the tenant. Some other defences like the Respondent-petitioner was not a landlord, that he had no locus standi to file the petition for eviction, and that the notice of termination of tenancy was not valid, were taken in the written statement and they were overruled and do not survive for consideration in this appeal. On the main contention, the tenant has taken up the defence that Sri Bhagwan is the son of the respondent and the name of the business Mis Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan is given only in memory of the deceased relative Hira Lal. A reply statement was filed by the landlord to the effect that though Sri Bhagwan was the natural son of the tenant-Duli Chand, he had been given in adoption to Hira Lal, that on such adoption Sri Bhagwan had gone out of the family of the respondent and that it was a clear case of sub-letting or parting with the possession of the shop.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of subletting did not arise but the case was considered on the dispute whether the tenant had parted with possession of the shop. The tenant never pleaded that he had obtained any written consent from the landlord for parting with possession. The only question, therefore, for consideration in this case is as to whether the tenant had parted with possession of the whole or part of the tenanted premises. The learned Rent Controller held that the landlord had not proved parting with possession of the tenanted shop by the tenant. On appeal by the landlord the Rent Control Tribunal held that the tenant had parted with the legal possession of the tenanted premises and in that view ordered the eviction of the tenant under section 14(1)(b) of the Act. The second appeal filed by the tenant to the High Court was dismissed confirming the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal that the tenant had parted with possession of the tenanted shop.

Section 14(1)(b) of the Act provides that the Rent Controller may on an application made to him in the prescribed manner make an order for recovery of possession of the. £r~mises on the ground- · "(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with th f the individual in his individual capacity, in the context of the statutory provision. of the Delhi Rent Control Act, this Court further held that the requirement as to the consent being in writing was in the public interest and that, therefore, there cannot be any question of waiver of a right, dealing with the rights of the tenants or landlord. The words used in the section are "without obtaining the consent in writing of~e landlord. " If the words were "without consent of the landlord" if·might mean without consent, express or implied and in that sense question of waiver may arise. The question of implied consent will not arise, if the consent is to be in writing.

The learned counsel for the appellant referred to a number of decisions of the English Courts in support of his contention. We do not think it necessary to refer to them in view of the direct decision of this Court on this point. In the circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the decisions of the courts below. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Y. Lal Appeal dismissed.