Back
1975 Supreme(Del) 83
High Court Of Delhi
RAJA RAM GOYAL - Appellant
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 65 of 1974
Decided On : 04/29/1975
ARUN MOHAN, SULTAN SINGH, T.B.LAL
The consent of the landlord to sub-letting must be in writing under section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and oral acceptance of the written offer of consent is not sufficient.
Headnote:
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958 - SECTION 14 (1) (B) - CONSENT IN WRITING OF THE LANDLORD - INTERPRETATION - CONSENT MUST BE IN WRITING OF THE LANDLORD - ORAL ACCEPTANCE OF WRITTEN OFFER OF CONSENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT - SUB-LETTING WITHOUT CONSENT IN WRITING IS UNLAWFUL.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a tenant, sublet portions of the premises in dispute to two sub-tenants in 1963 and 1964, respectively. The respondents, the landlords, filed a petition for eviction under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act), on the ground of unlawful sub-letting without obtaining the written consent of the landlords. The appellant claimed that he had the right to sub-let the premises as per the terms and conditions of the rent-note executed in his favor by the then owner of the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller held that the sub-letting was unlawful as the appellant did not obtain the written consent of the landlords. The appellant challenged this finding in the second appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the consent of the landlord to sub-letting must be in writing under section 14 (1) (b) of the Act? 2. Whether the oral acceptance of the written offer of consent by the landlord is sufficient to meet the requirement of consent in writing? 3. Whether the appellant had the right to sub-let the premises as per the terms and conditions of the rent-note executed in his favor?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the consent of the landlord to sub-letting must be in writing under section 14 (1) (b) of the Act. The requirement of the law is that not only the consent must be of the landlord, but it must also be incorporated in the writing of the landlord. The absence of signatures of the landlord or on his behalf under Section 14 (1) (b) clearly shows the intention of the Legislature that the consent need not be signed by the landlord, but it must be incorporated in a writing of the landlord. 2. No, the oral acceptance of the written offer of consent by the landlord is not sufficient to meet the requirement of consent in writing. The requirement of the written consent of the landlord is of great significance, in view of the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the Rent Control Act. A lawful subtenant is made a direct tenant by operation of law. If that was the intention of the Legislature, then the strict interpretation has to be given to the meaning of the words in writing of the landlord contained in sections 14 (1) (b) and 16 (2) of the Act. 3. No, the appellant did not have the right to sub-let the premises as per the terms and conditions of the rent-note executed in his favor. The rent-note executed by the tenant is only an offer for the acceptance of the landlord. The landlord can accept it orally or in writing. If he consents orally, it does not meet the requirement of section 14 (1) (b).
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the finding of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller that the sub-letting was unlawful due to the absence of written consent from the landlords.
( 1 ) THIS second appeal, filed by Shri Raja Ram Goyal tenant, is directed against the order dated January 11, 1974, of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, affirming the finding and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passing an order in favour of the respondents-landlords for ejectment of the appellant from premises No. 2218 Masjid Khajoor, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Premises in dispute) on account of unlawful sub-letting under section 14 (l) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
( 2 ) ON June 9, 1970, the respondents brought the petition for eviction, out of which this second appeal has arisen, under section 14 of the Act on the ground of sub-letting, assigning and parting with the possession without obtaining the written consent of the landlords after June 9, 1952. In para 16 of the petition, it was stated that the sub-tenants, namely, Shri Hans Raj and Shri Ram Bakhsh have been inducted by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord during the years 1963-64. It was further averred that the rent-note executed by the tenant in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi, the then owner of the premises in dispute, did not amount to a written consent in law and if it did, it was only for a period of 11 months, i. e. , the duration of the rent-note. In the written statement dated August 11, 1970 filed by the tenant, it was admitted that Shri Hans Raj and Shri Ram Bakhsh are the sub-tenants in different portions of the premises in dispute, but it was pleaded that they are lawful sub-tenants. It was further pleaded that the respondents are bound by the terms and conditions of the tenancy as mentioned in rent-note dated February 12, 1961, according to which the tenant has the right to sub-let any portion or whole of the premises to anybody.
( 3 ) SHRI V. S. Aggarwal, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who tried the petition, by his order dated March 20, 1973, granted the petition for eviction under section 14 (1 ) (b) of the Act. The Additional Rent Controller held that Ex. A-6 is the copy of the order of the permission granted by the Competent Authority (Slum), that the tenancy stood validly determined, that the term contained in the rent-note regarding the sub-letting did not amount to the consent in writing of the landlord and that in any case. the said authority became ineffective after the expiry of II months, i. e. , the period for which the tenancy had been granted under rent note Ex. A-7. In the appeal against the aforesaid order dated March 20, 1973, the above findings were affirmed by Shri Gian Chand Jain, Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 11-1-1974, which order is now in second appeal before me.
( 4 ) THE facts of the case established on record are that the premises in dispute were let out with effect from January 1, 1961 by late Smt. Shanti Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, to the appellant under rent-note Ex. A-7. executed by the appellant alone on February 12, 1961. One of the terms of the rent-note is that the executant is empowered to sub-let the house in question io any body. Shri Harnam Dass, one of the respondents, who appeared as his own witness, had stated that the rent-note was executed in his presence, that he was present when the disputed premises were given on rent to the appellant, that the contents of Ex. A-7 were read over to his wife and she admitted them as correct, that the terms of the tenancy were settled in his presence, that no permission or power was given orally or separately for sub-letting and that whatever authority was given is contained in Ex. A-7. It is admitted by the appellant in the affidavit in reply to the interrogatories served on him that he had sublet the rooms situate on the ground floor of the property in dispute to Shri Hans Raj in the year 1963, that he had sub-let one room on the top floor to Shri Ram Bakhsh in the year 1964, but further stated that he had a right to sub-let the
