M. Jagannadha Rao, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the tenant (1st defendant) questioning the order of the learned Single Judge in IA 8220/90 in Suit No. 1288/89 dated 20. 11. 94 holding on Issue 2 that the above suit for eviction filed by the landlord (plaintiff) against the appellant and the sub- tenants (respondents 2 to 5) is maintainable in the Civil Court. The contention raised by the appellant is that the civil court has no jurisdiction and that the plaintiff has to go before the Rent Controller and that contention has been rejected by the learned Single Judge.

( 2 ) THE Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended by Act 57 of 1988 has, by introducing Section 3 (c) exempted w. e. f. 1. 12. 88 all premises whose rent exceeds Rs. 3500. 00 p. m. from the purview of the said Act. The appellant-tenant has been paying Rs. 900/. 00 p. m. to his landlord (1st respondent) under a registered deed dated 5. 1. 1978 but the appellant has admittedly subleased the premises to two tenants, to one at Rs. 40,000. 00 p. m. and to another at Rs. 4,500. 00 p. m. The tenant is contending that inasmuch as he is paying only Rs. 900. 00 p. m. to the plaintiff, the premises is governed by the Act. On the other hand, the plaintiff-1st respondent is contending that inasmuch as the "premises" is fetching a rental of Rs. 40,000 p. m. and Rs. 4,500 p. m. , the premises is exempt from the purview of the Act and the suit is maintainable in the Civil Court. (The registered lease deed here permits the tenant to sub let the premises ).

( 3 ) LEARNED Single Judge held that the test for purposes of the new amendment under Section 3 (c) intorudced in 1988 is to find out as to what rent the premises has been fetching and not what the tenant is paying to the landlord. Even if the tenant is paying a rent less than Rs. 3,500 p. m. , in case he has sublet to others and each of the sub-lessees is paying more than Rs. 3500 p. m. to the tenant, the premises , according to the learned Judge cannot come within the purview of the protection under the Act. He has relied upon certain observations of the Supreme Court in D. C. Bhatia and Others vs. Union of India 1995 (1) SCC 104 to the effect that the provision in Section 3 (c) is intended to protect tenants who belong to weaker sections of the community. If a tenant is receiving Rs. 40,000 p. m. and Rs. 4500 p. m. for the self-same premises upon sub-letting - which is permitted by the lease deed, - such a tenant is surely not one intended to be protected. On that basis, issue 2 has been decided in favour of the landlord and it is held that upon notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act,the civil court could be moved for eviction and it is not necessary to go before the Rent Controller.

( 4 ) IN this appeal, counsel for the parties have raised the same contentions once again.

( 5 ) THE point for consideration in the appeal is: Whether a tenant who is paying a rent of Rs. 900 p. m. (less than Rs. 3500 as specified in Section 3 ( (c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) can be evicted by a simple notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, through the civil court if he has lawfuly sub-let the premises to two tenants, one for Rs. 40,000 p. m. and another for Rs. 4,500 p. m. (in each case for more than Rs. 3500 p. m.)? Section 3 of the Act deals with premises to which the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is not to apply. One of the clauses is clause (c) as introduced in 1988. It reads as follows:

"section 3. Act not to apply to certain premises: Nothing in this Act shall appply (a ). . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . (c) to any premises, whether residential or not,, whose monthly rent exceeded three thousand and five hundred. "

( 6 ) IT will be noticed that the sub-clause (c) refers to the "premises" which is fetching a rent in excess of Rs. 3500 p. m. and not to a tenant who is paying rent in excess of Rs. 3500. 00. In fact, the emphasis in all the clauses in Section 3 is on the premises which are exempt. Differen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document