Back
High Court Of Delhi
VISHWANATH - Appellant
Versus
CHAMAN LAL KHANNA ETC - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 128 of 1974
Decided On : 03/19/1975
TENANCY - SUBLETTING - PARTING WITH POSSESSION - INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE (B) OF PROVISO TO S. 14 (1) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - LEGAL POSSESSION RETAINED BY TENANT - NO PARTING WITH POSSESSION - NO BREACH OF COVENANT - EJECTMENT NOT JUSTIFIED.
Fact of the Case:
Vishwa Nath, the appellant, took a room on rent in 1962. In 1964, he formed a company, Interads Advertising (P) Limited, which started paying rent. The landlords alleged that Vishwa Nath had sublet the premises to the company and sought his ejectment. Vishwa Nath and the company denied subletting, claiming that the company was the tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal found that Vishwa Nath was the tenant and that he had sublet the premises to the company, leading to his ejectment. The court, however, disagreed with this finding.
Issues: 1. Whether Vishwa Nath sublet the premises to the company, resulting in parting with possession and breach of the tenancy agreement? 2. Whether the company's occupation of the premises constituted subletting or mere sharing of possession?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted clause (b) of the proviso to S. 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which prohibits subletting, assignment, or parting with possession of the premises without the landlord's consent. 2. The court held that mere occupation of the premises by the company, with Vishwa Nath retaining legal possession and control as the managing director, did not amount to subletting or parting with possession. 3. The court relied on the principle that a tenant does not commit a breach of covenant against parting with possession by allowing other people to use the premises or sharing possession, as long as the tenant retains legal possession.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the ejectment order, and confirmed the dismissal of the application under S. 45 of the Act, which sought restoration of an amenity.
( 1 ) THIS is a tenant s appeal from the order of the rent control tribunal dated April 30. 1974.
( 2 ) THE facts are these. The apellant No. 1 Vishwa Nath carried on the business of advertising under the name and style of interads International Advertising Agency. He was the sole proprietor of this business. On November 1,1962, he took one. room 9 X 20 feet on the back side in a building bearing No. 6/4 Asaf Ali Road, Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00. This room is being used as an oftice, Chaman Lal Khanna. Advocate, and his three sons are the landlards of that building. They are respondents 1 to 4.
( 3 ) VISHWA Nath thought of expanding his business, in 1964 he formed a limited company. He called it Interads Advertising (P) Limited ("the company" ). Pro:n 1962 till the beginning of i964 he paid rent in the name of interads International Advertising Agency. After the formation of the company in 1964 the company started paying rent- Rent was being paid by pre-reccipted cheques- At the reverse, of the cheque a receipt was printed. The receipt is in these terms:
"received from M/s. INTERADS ADVERTISING Ltd. the sum stated on the other side of this cheque. Signature of payee-- -.- -. . .------ -. -.----- -. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date---- -. . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Note The above Signatures arc intended to be a receipt only. "
( 4 ) IN the beginning Vishwa Nath, appellant No. 1, and later on the company, appellant No. 2. used to send the pre-reccipied cheques lo the landlords. Mr. Charnan Lal Khanna, respondent No. 1, would sign the cheques on the reverse and obtain payment thereof. The cheques used to be returned to the company so that these may serve as receipts.
( 5 ) ON January 25, 1969. the landlords brought a petition for ejectment of Vishva Nath, appellant No. 1, and Interads Advertising (P) Limited, respondent No- 2, mainly on the ground that Vishwa Nath had sublet, assigned and parted with the possession of premises in fovour of the company. In the ejectment petition other grounds were also taken. The landlords also alleged that Vishwa Nath had sublet the premises to Stereo craft and Adman Studio (respondent No. 5 ). It was further alleged that Vishwa Nath had caused substantial damage io the premises.
( 6 ) BEFORE the rent controller k was conceded by the counsel for the landlords that except for unauthorised subletting by Vishwa Nath to inc company nu oi. her ground of eviction was proved in the case. The landlords, therefore, claimed ejectment of tire tenant Vishwa Nath and the company he had formed on the ground that he had sublet the premises to the company.
( 7 ) GROUND (b) to proviso to S. 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ("the Act") is in these terms: "that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952. sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. "
( 8 ) THE case was fought on this ground and no other. Vishwa Nath and the company filed a joint written statement. Their defence was that ii was the company which was the tenant and not Vishwa Nath. The company was in exclusive, possession, they said. Vishwa Nath said that he was the chief executive of the company, in a word they denied that there was subletting.
( 9 ) ON August 11, 1969, the company moved a petition under S. 45 of the Act. The company alleged that in addition to the room they were entitled to the use of a bathroom situated in the premises. The landlords had closed the bathroom. The company complained of deprivation of an essential amenity and sought an order against the I landlords directing them to restore the amenity. To tins application the defence of the landlords was that the company was not their tenant. They said only Vishwa Nath was their tenant. On merits was said that they had never allowed the use of the bat
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
