SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 743

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE S.C. AGRAWAL AND S. MOHAN, JJ.)
MANPHUL SINGH SHARMA
Versus
AHMEDI BEGUM (SMT) (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER ALLEGED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE/SUCCESSORS (A) M.A. KHAN (B) DELHI WAKF BOARD
Civil Appeal No. 1959 of 1984{From the Judgment and Order dated 31-7-1981 of the Delhi High Court in EFA(OS) No. 7 of 1971}, decided on August 9, 1994
Advocates appeared
B .B. Sawhney, Advocate, for the Appellant;
M.C. Dhingra, Advocate, for the Respondent.
N.A. Siddiqui, Advocate, for the Delhi Wakf Board.

Advocates:
B.B.Sawhney, M.C.DHINGRA, N.A.SIDDIQUI

Headnote:

Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 - Section 20 - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 17, 18 , 25 - General Clauses Act - Section 6 - Control Act of 1952 - Section 57 - Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act of 1926 - Restored the decree for possession - Evidenced by registered lease - Demise property- Sublet the entirety of the property - Suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment - - On by a registered lease deed sublet entirety of property authorised to sublet - Appellant started paying rents - Consequent to failure of head tenant S. to pay the rent, in spite of the notice of payment by landlady tenancy in his favour came to be terminated filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment – Held, Court think first proviso must be read harmoniously with substantive provision contained in sub-section (2) and only way of harmonising the two is to accept view which the Punjab High Court has accepted, namely words shall have regard to the provisions of Act merely mean that where new Act has slightly modified or clarified the previous provisions, these modifications and clarifications should be applied – Court see no other way of harmonising sub-section (2) with the first proviso thereto - case the respondent-landlord is entitled to benefit of clause (c), sub-clause (i), of proviso to Section 13(1) of the Control Act of 1952 and the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 57 of Control Act of 1958 does not stand in his way - Appellant has failed to make out any acquiescence by landlord to subletting in question - High Court rightly allowed petition in revision and restored decree for possession made by trial court - Appeal fails and is dismissed

Judgment

MOHAN, J.- The facts leading to the civil appeal are as under.

2. One Ahmedi Begum was the owner of Dharampur Lodge situated near Clock Tower, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. She leased out the entire property to one S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar. The lease was for a period of 5 years evidenced by registered lease deed dated 12-4-1948. On expiry of the said lease another lease dated 3-4-1953 was executed for a further period of 5 years which was also duly registered.

3. Both these lease deeds empowered the lessee S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar to sublet the whole or a part of the demise property. S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar sublet various portions of the property to several subtenants. One such subletting was in favour of the appellant, Manphul Singh Sharma in April 1948 and another portion to Yog Raj Goswami in August 1956.

4. On 1-9-1956 the tenant S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar by a registered lease deed sublet the entirety of the property in favour of Surinder Kumar Sharma. That, in turn, authorised Surinder Kumar Sharma to sublet. Thereafter S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar called upon all the subtenants to attorn in favour of Surinder Kumar Sharma. The appellant and Yog Raj Goswami started paying rents to Surinder Kumar Sharma.

5. Consequent to the failure of the head tenant S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar to pay the rent, in spite of the notice of payment by the landlady on 23-7-1957, the tenancy in his favour came to be terminated. Ahmedi Begum filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment, after obtaining the necessary permission under the Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act of 1926. That suit ended in a decree in favour of Ahmedi Begum. Those execution proceedings stood transferred to High Court. Surinder Kumar Sharma, the subtenant, filed objections to the effect that he was a lawful subtenant and became a direct tenant under the decreeholder by virtue of Section 20 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as the 1952 Act). His claim was negatived both by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.

6. The appellant and Yog Raj Goswami filed similar objections that the subletting in their favour was with the consent of the landlady and Section 20 of the 1952 Act would enure to their benefit. The objection was overruled by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. He reasoned that the appellant had attorned to Surinder Kumar Sharma under written direction of S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar. This would tantamount to surrender of tenancy under S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar and creation of tenancy in favour of Surinder Kumar Sharma. Therefore, he was not a lawful subtenant. Similar objection of Yog Raj Goswami was also dismissed. Aggrieved by this, appeals were preferred in EFA(OS) 7 of 1971 and 9 of 1972 by the appellant as well as Yog Raj Goswami.

7. Ahmedi Begum died in February 1980, pending appeal. One M.A. Khan claimed that Ahmedi Begum had created a wakf and he was the Mutawalli.

8. The Delhi Wakf Board further instituted a suit for declaration that M.A. Khan had nothing to do with the property nor was he a Mutawalli. On the contrary, the property stood vested in the Board as wakf. In the appeals filed by the appellant and Yog Raj Goswami both M.A. Khan as well as the Delhi Wakf Board came to be impleaded as legal representatives of Ahmedi Begum. The Appellate Bench held that there was no lawful surrender in favour of Surinder Kumar Sharma. Notwithstanding this finding, the appeals came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 31-7-1981, on the only ground that under Section 17 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act), the appellant had not served notice on the owner Ahmedi Begum. That being so, the protection available under Section 18 of the 1958 Act, making a subtenant a statutory tenant was unavailable to him. Questioning the correctness of this judgment the present appeal has been preferred.

9. The only submission of Mr B.B. Sawhney, learned counsel

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top