JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 12.03.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM (M) No.485 of 2001, whereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by the respondents herein and set aside the decree of eviction passed by the Rent Control Tribunal¹[In RCA No.22/2000.].

2. Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are as follows:

2.1 The present appellant, British Motor Car Company Limited²[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘landlord’.], in 1947, let out an area of 2443.75 sq. ft. on the ground floor and 1150.25 sq. ft. on the mezzanine floor in the property known as Pratap Building N-Block, Connaught Circus, New Delhi³[Hereinafter referred to as the ‘tenanted premises’.], to Hindustan Commercial Bank⁴[‘HCB’ for short.] (Respondent No.1 herein) at a monthly rent of Rs.585/- per month, for non-residential purposes.

2.2 On 18.12.1986, the Government of India issued a Gazette Notification under Section 45(7) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949⁵[Hereinafter referred to as ‘BR Act’.], pursuant to which HCB was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank (Respondent No.2 herein)⁶[‘PNB’ for short.]. The Notification prescribed 19.12.1986 as the date on which the amalgamation Scheme, prepared by the Reserve Bank of India, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 45(4) of the BR Act, would take effect. In light of such a scheme, all rights and liabilities of HCB stood vested with PNB, as a consequence whereof, the latter came into possession of the tenanted premises.

2.3 The appellant filed an Eviction Petition, being E-161/1987, seeking eviction of the respondents herein from the tenanted premises under Section 14(1)(b) r/w Section 14(1)(j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958⁷[Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’.]. The contention of the landlord was that HCB had sublet/assigned/parted with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of PNB without obtaining their written consent, hence PNB being an unauthorized sub-tenant is liable to be evicted u/s 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act.

2.4 The Additional Rent Controller, Delhi⁸[In E-161/87], vide judgment and order dated 03.11.1995, dismissed the eviction petition, observing as under:

“11. … Here in the case provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act-1949 makes it clear that the scheme or any provisions thereof shall be binding on the Banking Company or, as the case may be, on the transferee bank and any other banking company concerned in the amalgamation and also on all the members, depositors and other creditors and employees of each of those companies and of the transferee bank and on any other person having any right or liabilities in relation to any those companies. (emphasis supplied). Thus it is clear that the scheme of amalgamation shall be binding on the petitioner since it falls within the category of any other person having any right or liability in relation to the transferor bank. The petitioner certainly has a right to sue and the transferor bank in respect of its obligation relating to the terms of tenancy, under the terms of the Act as well as general Civil Law. Thus, it falls within the category of any other person as contemplated by the aforesaid sub-section. Hence, there is no two opinion that the scheme of amalgamation is binding upon the petitioner. In these situations the petitioner is bound by the scheme, which is law providing for amalgamation of the two banking companies in public interest and is, therefore, protected under Article 31-A(l)(c) of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid scheme being the statutory one, is law and is binding on the petitioner, leaving no room for him to invoke the provision of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. By the law, in the shape of the scheme of amalgamation referred above, the respondent no.1 has become a tenant under the petitioner.

12. … Herein the case the scheme was sanctioned by the Central Government when the same was placed