1. Eviction petition under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, concerning the parting with possession of premises without the landlord's consent. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 675
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
BHAIRON SAHAI (D) THROUGH LRS. – Appellant(s)
Versus
BISHAMBER DAYAL (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL No.9198 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.24689 of 2011)
Decided On : 18-07-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When a tenant parts possession of rented premises without consent of the landlord, he would be liable for eviction.
When a tenant parts possession of rented premises without consent of the landlord, he would be liable for eviction.
Subject
Eviction - Parting of Possession
Act Referred
Headnote
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Section 14(1)(b) and 14(4) – Tenant entering into partnership with another person – Parting possession of part of premises – Without consent of landlord – Held, Landlord entitled to eviction. (Para 12)
Civil Appeal No. 1327 of 2017 – Relied upon
(2004) 4 SCC 794 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The petition filed by the Appellant-Landlord for eviction of the Respondents was allowed by the Rent Controller. The Tribunal set aside the Judgment of the Rent Controller in the appeal filed by the Respondents. The second appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Landlord appellant is entitled to eviction.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Manju Jetley, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs.
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Manju Jetley, Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. Landlord claims eviction due to parting with possession; tenant argues that entering into a partnership does not constitute sub-letting or parting with possession. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. The court found that the tenant allowed a third-party licensee to occupy a portion of the premises without consent, thereby parting with possession. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Parting with possession of premises without the landlord's consent is a sufficient ground for eviction, regardless of whether the act constitutes sub-letting or assignment. (Para 9 )
5. Appeal allowed; respondents directed to vacate the premises within two months. (Para 12 )
6. Does parting with possession without consent justify eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act?
Yes, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, a tenant is liable for eviction if they sub-let, assign, or otherwise part with the possession of the premises without obtaining the written consent of the landlord. (Para 5 , 9 )
7. How does the law treat partnerships that are used to camouflage sub-letting?
Under Section 14(4), if a tenant allows another to occupy premises ostensibly as a partner but actually for the purpose of sub-letting without written consent, such an arrangement is deemed to be sub-letting. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Is it necessary to prove sub-letting if parting with possession is established?
No, parting with the possession of the premises without the consent of the landlord is sufficient for eviction, without the need to specifically prove sub-letting or assignment. (Para 9 )
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Leave granted.
The petition filed under Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 by the Appellant-Landlord for eviction of the Respondents was allowed by the Rent Controller. The Tribunal set aside the Judgment of the Rent Controller in the appeal filed by the Respondents. The second appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi, aggrieved by which the Appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. Respondent No.1 became the tenant of a shop measuring 138 square feet in Karol Bagh, New Delhi after a family previous owner in the year 1974. The Appellant issued a notice terminating the tenancy on the ground that Respondent No.1 had parted with the possession of the premises without his consent and that he had caused substantial damage to the premises. In the Eviction Petition, the Appellant stated that Respondent No.1 had sub-let a part of the premises to Respondent No.2 who was running a ration shop. In the written statement, the Respondents denied the averments made in the Eviction Petition and stated that the ration shop was being run by Respondent No.1, though the licence was in the name of Respondent No.2. It was further stated that in a portion of the premises, Respondent No.1 was having a provision store for selling pulses, rice, tea, oil, ghee, etc. and the other portion was being utilized for a fair price shop. It was also stated that the entire premises was being used as a fair price shop after 01.10.1976 and that Respondent No.2 was taken as a partner by Respondent No.1 w.e.f. 01.01.1977. The Rent Controller held that Respondent No.2 was given a Food Grain Licence in March, 1964 in his own name and that Section 4 of the Delhi Rationing Order, 1964 prohibits any person other than the licensee from running the shop. After examining the provisions of the Delhi Rationing Order, 1964 and after drawing an adverse inference against Respondent No.1 for not producing partition in the year 1963 on payment of a rent of Rs.54/-per month. The Appellant purchased the premises from its the relevant records, the Rent Controller held that Respondent No.1 was not running the fair price shop. The Rent Controller also held that Respondent No.2 was running his business as an Authorised Ration Distributor of a fair price shop in the premises. It was further held that Respondent No.1 parted with possession of the shop in favour of Respondent No.2 without the consent of the landlord. The Rent Controller decided the Eviction Petition in favour of the Appellant and directed the Respondents to hand over vacant peaceful possession of the shop to the Appellant within a period of two months.
3. The Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi on a re-appreciation of the evidence on record reversed the findings of the Rent Controller and concluded that it was Respondent No.1 and not Respondent No.2 who was carrying on the business of a fair price shop. The High Court confirmed the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal by holding that it had not been proved that Respondent No.2 was in exclusive possession of the suit premises.
4. The point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether a landlord is entitled to seek eviction of the Respondents on the ground of parting with possession without his consent. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 is the tenant. A fair price shop is being run in a portion of the premises.
Respondent No.2 is the licensee of the fair price shop since 1964. A fair price shop under the Delhi Rationing Order is not transferable. It is the case of the Respondents that a portion of the premises was being utilized for running the fair price shop for which Respondent No.2 held the licence. The remaining portion of the premises was being used by Respondent No.1 for carrying on business of a provision store. Respondent No.1 entered into a partnership with Respondent No.2 in the year 1977. Undisputedly, all this was done without the consent of the Appellant.
5. Section 14 (1) (b) of the Act prov
