Back
High Court Of Delhi
RATTAN LAL - Appellant
Versus
VARDESH CHANDER - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL 43 of 1973
Decided On : 05/30/1975
RENT CONTROL ACT - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - APPLICABILITY - NOTICE TO QUIT - FORFEITURE - NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DETERMINE LEASE - PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, JUSTICE AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The premises in dispute were let out with effect from May 1, 1954 by a rent note, Ex. AW3/1, of May 19, 1954 by the first respondent, the owner thereof, to the appellant. According to the rent note the tenancy was for a period of "less than one year," there was a covenant against sub-letting and in case the tenant committed breach of any of its terms, "the landlord would be entitled to file an action for ejectment without an objection from the tenant. " The other respondents are the alleged sub-tenants, who have not contested the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Act is not a complete Code in itself in relation to the entire gamut of landlord-tenant relationship but lays down the conditions on which a, landlord would be entitled to eject a tenant who has lost the contractual protection. Where the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to a tenancy, it would regulate the relationship between the landlord and the tenant in so far as the provisions of that Act are not in consistent with the provisions of the Act and in case of inconsistency, the provisions of the Act would prevail. The right of the landlord to seek ejectment of a tenant under the Act subject to the condition laid down in the Act arises only after the tenant has ceased to be a cootractual tenant on the determination of his tenancy by the various modes known to law. The conditions on which and the manner in which a tenancy may be determined would be regulated by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, if the said Act is applicable, otherwise by the principles embodied in it in so far as these principles are consistent with the rules of equity, justice and good conscience.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act is a complete Code in itself dealing with the entire gamut of landlord-tenant relationship and would exclude the application of the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, if otherwise applicable, or the principles incorporated in it, if not, in respect of tenancies covered by the Act, 2. Whether the principle embodied in clause (a) of Section III of the Transfer of Property Act was attracted. 3. Whether the lease could be said to have been determined by forfeiture in terms of the principle embodied in clause (g) of Section III of the Transfer of Property Act so as to obviate the necessity of a notice of determination of tenancy in order to save the first respondent s application for ejectment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Act is not a complete Code in itself in relation to the entire gamut of landlord-tenant relationship but lays down the conditions on which a, landlord would be entitled to eject a tenant who has lost the contractual protection. 2. The principle embodied in clause (a) of Section III of the Transfer of Property Act was not attracted as the tenancy was for an indefinite period and not for a time which was limited. 3. The lease could be said to have been determined by forfeiture in terms of the principle embodied in clause (g) of Section III of the Transfer of Property Act as the rent note contained an express condition that the tenant would not sub-let the premises and that the tenant having committed a breach the first condition was, therefore, satisfied. The provision in clause (g) of Section III requiring notice in writing to the lessee of the landlord s intention to determine the lease could not be said to be based on any principle of English Law or be said to be in consonance with any principle of equity, justice and good conscience and could not, therefore, be attracted to forfeiture to which the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply.
Final Decision: The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The tenant would get three months time from today to deliver vacant possession. In the circumstances, there would be no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter to be referred as the Act which came up before us on a reference by the learned Single Judge of this Court, raises certain questions with regard to the extent to which the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would govern the relationship of landlord and tenant in the Union Territory of Delhi before the latter Act was extended to the said territory and the further question whether even after its extension, its operation is excluded by the provisions of the Act in relation to tenancies, whether contractual or statutory, which are covered by the Act.
( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances leading to the appeal may be briefly stated. The premises in dispute were let out with effect from May 1, 1954 by a rent note, Ex. AW3/1, of May 19, 1954 by the first respondent, the owner thereof, to the appellant. According to the rent note the tenancy was for a period of "less than one year," there was a covenant against sub-letting and in case the tenant committed breach of any of its terms, "the landlord would be entitled to file an action for ejectment without an objection from the tenant. " The other respondents are the alleged sub-tenants, who have not contested the proceedings. The first respondent sought the eviction of the appellant from the aforesaid premises on grounds of unlawful sub-letting and acquisition by the appellant of other residential premises, being grounds covered by clauses (b) and (h) respectively of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Both the grounds of eviction prevailed with the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal and this aspect of the matter, therefore, is beyond controversy. In the application for eviction, the first respondent had stated against column 18 (b) of the application relating to notice that no notice was necessary. The appellant, therefore, raised the question before the Additional Rent Controller that the application for eviction was not maintainable in the absence of a notice to quit before its institution. The objection was reiterated before Tribunal as indeed before the learned Single Judge and before us at the hearing of the Second Appeal. The objection was turned down both by the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal though for different reasons. The Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that no notice was necessary because the tenancy was for a fixed period, had expired by efflux of time by virtue of clause (a) of Section III of Transfer of Property Act thereby obviating the necessity of a notice. The Tribunal, however, reversed this finding and held that the tenancy could not be said to have been for a fixed term and could not, therefore, have been determined by efflux of time but came to an end on account of forfeiture of the lease by the appellant s act of unlawful sub-letting in terms of clause (g) of Section III of the Transfer of Property Act but that notice in writing to the lessee of the landlord s intention to determine the lease as required by the said clause, was not necessary as the Transfer of Property Act did not then apply to the Union Territory of Delhi and the said requirement not being based on any principle of equity, justice and good conscience, need not be complied with to avail of the forfeiture implying thereby that institution of action for ejectment on account of the breach was sufficient indication of the landlord s intention. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Namdeo Lokman Lodhi (l ).
( 3 ) BEFORE the learned Single Judge, it was contended on the authority of decision if the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Mohammad (2) and certain decisions of this Court and a decision of the Punjab High Court that even though the Transfer of Property Act did not then apply to Delhi, the principles embodied in Section 111 (g) did being in consonance with the rules of
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
