1. Sub-tenant's claim to statutory tenancy after the main tenancy was determined before the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — Suit for permanent injunction. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1966 Supreme(SC) 175
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, C.J.I. AND J.M SHELAT. J.
Nand Kishore, Appellant
Versus
Ram Kishan and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 467 of 1966,
D/- 25-8-1966.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Senior Advocate, (M/s. E. C. Agrawala and P. C. Agrawala, Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Gauri Dayal Advocate, for Respondents.
Advocates:
A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.C.AGRAWAL, GAURI DAYAL, P.C.AGRAWAL
A.K.SEN GUPTA, B.C.AGRAWAL, GAURI DAYAL, P.C.AGRAWAL
Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, does not bar civil suits where a sub-tenant claims statutory tenancy under Section 18(2), as the Rent Controller's jurisdiction under Section 17(3) is limited to disputes arising during the subsistence of the main tenancy.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 17(2), 17(3), 18(1), 18(2) and 50 - Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 - Section 20 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Statutory tenancy of sub-tenant - Section 50 bars civil suits in matters the Controller is empowered to decide - Section 17(3) empowers the Controller to decide disputes regarding lawful sub-letting only during the subsistence of the tenancy - If the main tenancy ceased to exist before the commencement of the Act, Section 17(3) is not attracted - Section 18(2) provides that where the interest of a tenant was determined before the Act without determining the interest of a lawfully sub-let sub-tenant, the sub-tenant is deemed to become a tenant holding directly under the landlord - No provision empowers the Controller to decide disputes arising under Section 18(2) - Therefore, Section 50 is not a bar to a civil suit for declaration of rights under Section 18(2). (Paras 7, 8)
(B) Vested Rights - Right acquired by a sub-tenant under Section 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, upon eviction of the tenant, is a vested right - In the absence of any provision in the subsequent Act taking away such right or empowering the Controller to decide disputes regarding it, a civil suit for declaration of such right is maintainable. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The owner of the premises obtained a decree for ejectment against the tenant before the commencement of the Act. The sub-tenant, who was not a party to the eviction suit, obstructed the delivery of possession, claiming to have become a tenant under the provisions of the Act. The sub-tenant subsequently filed a suit for a permanent injunction in a civil court. The owner contended that the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Act.
Findings of Court:
The sub-tenant is not hit by Section 50 of the Act because the main tenancy ended before the Act came into force, making Section 17(3) inapplicable. The sub-tenant can claim tenancy under Section 18(2) of the Act or a vested right under Section 20 of the 1952 Act.
Issues: Whether Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, acts as a bar to the maintainability of a civil suit filed by a sub-tenant claiming statutory tenancy under Section 18(2) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Controller's power to decide sub-tenancy disputes under Section 17(3) is limited to cases where the tenancy is subsisting. Where the main tenancy was determined before the Act, the sub-tenant becomes a tenant by statutory fiction under Section 18(2). Since the Act does not empower the Controller to decide disputes under Section 18(2), the bar under Section 50 does not apply.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 50 of the Act bars a civil suit when the Rent Controller is empowered under Section 17 to decide sub-tenancy disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Section 17(3) applies only to subsisting tenancies; disputes regarding statutory tenancies created under Section 18(2) are not triable by the Rent Controller. (Para 7 )
4. Section 50 does not bar civil suits regarding sub-tenancies where the main tenancy ceased before the Act's commencement and the sub-tenant claims rights under Section 18(2). (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 12 )
6. Does Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, bar civil suits regarding all sub-tenancy disputes?
No. It only bars suits regarding matters the Controller is empowered to decide. If the dispute falls outside the Controller's jurisdiction—such as when the main tenancy ceased before the Act's commencement—the civil court retains jurisdiction. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. When does Section 17(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, empower the Rent Controller to decide a sub-tenancy dispute?
The Controller is empowered to decide disputes under Section 17(3) only when the sub-tenancy was created before the Act and the main tenancy is still subsisting. (Para 7 )
8. How does Section 18(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, affect a sub-tenant whose main tenancy was determined before the Act?
Where the tenant's interest was determined before the Act without determining the sub-tenant's interest, the sub-tenant is deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlord from the Act's commencement. (Para 7 )
9. Does a vested right under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, persist under the 1958 Act?
Yes, if a sub-tenant acquired a vested right to become a tenant under the 1952 Act upon the eviction of the tenant, and the 1958 Act contains no provision removing that right, it persists. (Para 9 )
Judgement
SUBBA RAO, CJI. : This appeal by special leave raises the question of the construction of some of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the Act.
2. Appellant-1st defendant is the owner of premises No. 6022, Gali Mandir Wali, Arya Samaj Delhi Ram Saram Das, respondent No. 2 herein, was the tenant of the appellant in respect of the said premises and Ram Kishan Das, respondent No. 1 herein, was a sub-tenant. On January 30, 1959 the appellant obtained a decree for ejectment against the 2nd respondent from the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi. To that suit the 1st respondent, the sub-tenant, was not made a party. When that decree was sought to be executed against the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent obstructed delivery of possession of the premises on the ground that he, as a sub-tenant, had become a tenant under the provisions of the Act. The executing Court rejected his claim. Thereafter, on May 22, 1962 the 1st respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi against the appellant and respondent No. 2 praying for a decree for a permanent injunction against the appellant and the 2nd respondent restraining the appellant from taking possession of the said premises. The appellant inter alia contended that S. 50 of the Act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit in a civil Court. It is not necessary to state the other defences, as nothing turns on them in this appeal .The said plea was rejected in the first instance by the learned Subordinate Judge, on appeal by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge and on Second Appeal by the High Court. Hence the appeal.
3. The only question that arises in this appeal is, whether S. 50 of the Act is a bar to the maintainability of the suit filed by the 1st respondent against the appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that S. 50 of the Act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit, as S. 17 of the Act empowered the Rent Controller to decide a dispute in regard to the question whether a person was a sub-tenant or not.
5. The leaned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that S. 17 (3) of the Act applied only to a case where a dispute arose during the subsistence of tenancy, that in the instant case the tenancy had come to an end before the Act came into force, that the 1st respondent became a tenant under sub-s. (2) of S. 18, that a dispute in regard to the question whether he had become a statutory tenant thereunder, was not a dispute triable by the Rent Controller and that, therefore S. 50 of the Act was not a bar to the maintainability of the suit.
6. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the 1st respondent had become a tenant under S. 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, that there was no provision in the Act conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Rent Controller in respect of the said right vested in him before the Act and that, therefore, the suit for a declaration of the said pre-existing right was maintainable in the civil Court.
7. The solution to the rival contentions depends on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Act. Under S. 50 of the Act, no civil Court shall entertain any suit in respect of a matter which the Controller is empowered by or under the Act to decide. If the Controller, in exercise of the power conferred on him under the Act, can decide the dispute in respect of the claim of the 1st respondent to a statutory tenancy, there cannot be any doubt that his suit is not maintainable in a civil court. Section 17 (3) of the Act on which reliance is placed for invoking the aid of S. 50 reads:
"Where in any case mentioned in sub-s. (2), the landlord contests that the premises were not lawfully sub-let, and an application is made to the Collector in this behalf, either by the landlord or by the sub-tenant within two months of the date of the receipt of the notice of sub-letting by the landlord or the
