Back
1972 Supreme(Del) 249
High Court Of Delhi
AFTAB AHMED - Appellant
Versus
M.ABDUL KADIR - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal 284 of 1966
Decided On : 11/03/1972
H.L.SABARVAL, K.K.Mittal, Ravinder Sethi
The proviso to section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act applies to premises belonging to the Government which have been or are lawfully let by any person by virtue of an arrangement with the Government or otherwise. The expression "lawfully let" means that there need not be actual letting to the persons who were tenants under the Custodian before, by the persons in whose favor an agreement to transfer the property has been executed and to whom provisional possession has also been handed over by the Managing Officer. The handing over of provisional possession to the transferees and the direction to the persons who are tenants under the Custodian before to pay rent to the transferees, would amount to letting by the transferees to said tenants for the purposes of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - JURISDICTION - PREMISES BELONGING TO GOVERNMENT - LETTING BY PERSON BY VIRTUE OF ARRANGEMENT WITH GOVERNMENT - MEANING OF - DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958, SECTION 3, PROVISO.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against defendants, claiming to be the landlords of the premises in question. The premises were evacuee property acquired by the Government and formed part of the common pool. Plaintiffs were directed to be transferred the property by the Government and a part of the consideration was realized from them. Provisional possession of the property was delivered to them. Defendants 1 and 2 were tenants under the Custodian of Evacuee Property and were directed by the Managing Officer to pay rent and deal otherwise directly with the plaintiffs with effect from a certain date. Plaintiffs claimed that they became landlords of the premises from the aforesaid date and defendants 1 and 2 became their tenants by operation of law. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit for eviction, holding that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit as they were only licensees and not landlords.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the suit for eviction was not maintainable in the civil court as the premises in question belonged to the Government and the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied to the same by virtue of the proviso to section 3 of the Act. The court interpreted the proviso to section 3 of the Act and held that for the purpose of the proviso, there need not be actual letting to the persons who were tenants under the Custodian before, by the persons in whose favor an agreement to transfer the property has been executed and to whom provisional possession has also been handed over by the Managing Officer. The handing over of provisional possession to the transferees and the direction to the persons who are tenants under the Custodian before to pay rent to the transferees, would amount to letting by the transferees to said tenants for the purposes of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable in the civil court? 2. Whether the plaintiffs had locus standi to file the suit for eviction?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proviso to section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control Act applies to premises belonging to the Government which have been or are lawfully let by any person by virtue of an arrangement with the Government or otherwise. The court interpreted the expression "lawfully let" to mean that there need not be actual letting to the persons who were tenants under the Custodian before, by the persons in whose favor an agreement to transfer the property has been executed and to whom provisional possession has also been handed over by the Managing Officer. The handing over of provisional possession to the transferees and the direction to the persons who are tenants under the Custodian before to pay rent to the transferees, would amount to letting by the transferees to said tenants for the purposes of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeals, holding that the suit for eviction was not maintainable in the civil court as the premises in question belonged to the Government and the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act applied to the same by virtue of the proviso to section 3 of the Act.
( 1 ) THESE two Regular Second Appeals (Nos. 284-D and 28 5-D of 1966) have arisen out of the same suit and can, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment.
( 2 ) AFTAB Ahmed and Zaki Ahmed filed a suit, No. 314 of 1964, in the Court of Shri Prem Kumar Jain, Subordinate Judge IInd Class, Delhi, for the eviction of five defendants, defendants 1 to 5 in the suit, from House No. XIII/995, situatad in Mohalla Kishan Ganj, Teliwara, Delhi. The said house was evacuee property acquired by the Central Government under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, and formed a part of the common pool. According to the plaintiff. , the said property was directed to be transferred to them by the Government and a part of the consideration was realised from them. No sale certificate, however, was issued in their favour as the full consideration for the transfer had not yet been paid. The plaintiffs alleged that with effect from July 24, 1962. provisional possession of the property was delivered to them. It is their case that defendants 1 and 2 were the tenants in respect of different portions of the property under the Custodian of Evacuee Property on a rent of Rs. 30. 37 per month, and they were directed by the Managing Officer to pay the rent and deal otherwise directly with the plaintiffs with effect from July 24, 1962. The plaintiffs claimed that they became landlords of the said premises from the aforesaid date and defendants 1 and 2 became their tenants by operation of law. They however, admitted that no payment of rent was made by the said defendants to them. Defendants 3 and 4 were said to be sub-tenants in respect of the ground-floor of the property and defenddant 5, a society, was stated to have been claiming itself to be the tenant of the premises, which claim was denied by the plaintiffs. Alleging that they served notices, dated June 13, 1964, on the defendants terminating their tenancies and directing them to band over possession of the property to them, and that the defendants failed to do so, the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction against the said defendants.
( 3 ) DEFEDANTS 1 and 3 to 5 filed a joint written statement in which they asserted that it was defedant 5 who was the tenant of the entire house, that defedant who was then the Amir-e-Jamait of defendant 5 never tools the tenancy in his personal capacity, that defendant 3 was in occupation of the ground-floor and the defendant 4, who is the son of defedant ", was residing with his father. They pleaded that defendant 5 was an unregistered body and, therefore, the suit against the said defendant was not maintainable. They raised various other pleas, viz. , that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the notices alleged to have been served upon them were illegal, that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, that the plaintiffs were not the owners of the property in dispute and as such had no right to file the suit, and that the property was not valued properly for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction.
( 4 ) DEFENDANT 2 filed a separate written statement in which he pleaded that he never attorned to the plaintiffs, that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between himself and the plaintiffs, that the civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in view of sections 3 and 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that he was a tenant in respect of the first floor of the premises under the Custodian on payment of Ks. 9. 37, and that he was not a joint tenant with defendants. He also pleaded that the notice alleged to have been served upon him was illegal and invalid.
( 5 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues : -
1. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ?
3. Whether there is no relationship of lessor and lessee between the
