Back
2000 Supreme(Del) 184
High Court Of Delhi
MOHAN ARORA - Appellant
Versus
M.PANAT - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 353 of 1985
Decided On : 02/17/2000
RAMAN KAPOOR, S.R.MATHUR
Subletting without the written consent of the landlord is impermissible when the lease deed is unregistered.
Headnote:
Subletting - Lease Deed - The Supreme Court held that the subletting of a part of the suit premises without the written consent of the landlord is impermissible, especially when the lease deed is unregistered.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sublet a part of the suit premises without the written consent of the landlord, based on a lease deed that was unregistered.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the order of eviction based on the impermissible subletting, citing the Supreme Court's decision on the inadmissibility of terms in an unregistered lease deed.
Issues: The issue was whether the subletting of a part of the suit premises without the written consent of the landlord was permissible based on the terms of the unregistered lease deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision, which held that inadmissible terms in an unregistered lease deed, including subletting without the landlord's written consent, cannot be relied upon.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of eviction was confirmed due to the impermissible subletting without the written consent of the landlord.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 12th September, 1985 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 560 of 1985. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the first appeal of the appellant and ordered his eviction from the suit premises.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case are not in serious dispute. According to the appellant, he and the respondent entered into a lease deed dated 1st September, 1978. In terms of Clause 5 of this lease deed, the appellant was entitled to sub-let, assign or otherwise part with the possession of a part or the whole of the demised premises. The admitted position is that the lease deed was not a registered document. It is also admitted that in view of Clause 5 of the lease deed, the appellant had sub-let a part of the suit premises.
( 3 ) THE question that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the subletting of a part of the suit premises was permissible or not. The question raised in this appeal is no longer res integra, the controversy having been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Bihari Lal Kohli, AIR 1989 SC 1806.
( 4 ) IN paragraph 8 of the report, the Supreme Court held, inter alia, as follow :
"the question whether a lessee is entitled to create a sub-lease or not is undoubtedly a term of the transaction of lease, and if it is incorporated in the document it cannot be dissociated from the lease and considered separately in isolation. If a document is inadmissible for non-registration, all its terms are inadmissible including the one dealing with the landlords permission to his tenant to sub-let. It follows that the appellant cannot, in the present circumstances, be allowed to rely upon the clause in his unregistered lease deed".
( 5 ) IN view of this authoritative announcement by the Supreme Court, it is quite clear that the appellant cannot take the benefit of Clause 5 of the lease deed dated 1st September, 1978. Consequently, there is no option but to confirm the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal to the effect that the appellant had sub-let the premises without the written consent of his landlord and was, therefore, liable to eviction.
( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is dismissed but for reasons different than those given by the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.
