KARAM SINGH SOBTI Vs. PRATAP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With much regret, we have come to a conclusion different from that of our learned brother Sarkar, J. as respects of the true scope and effect of S. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Control Act of 1958. The Control Act of 1958 repeals the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Control Act of 1952, in so far as that Act was applicable to the Union territory of Delhi, but contains certain savings in respect of "suits and proceedings " pending at the commencement of the Control Act of 1958. To these savings we shall advert later.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the appeal have been stated fully in the judgment of Sarkar, J. and we need not re-state the facts. The respondent, Pratap Chand, relied on cl. (c), sub-cl. (i) of the proviso to Section 13 (1) of the Control Act of 1952 in support of his claim for eviction of the appellant from a room, being room No.6, in Pratap Buildings situate in Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Sub- s. (1) of S. 13 of the Control Act of 1952 states that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or any contract, no degree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord against any tenant (including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated) ; the proviso creates certain exceptions and states that nothing in sub-s. (1) shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the case comes within the exceptions mentioned in the proviso. One of the exceptions is mentioned in cl. (c) sub-cl. ( i ), of the proviso. That exception relates to a case where the tenant without obtaining the consent of the landlord has before the commencement of the Control Act of 1952 sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises. The principal question for decision in the appeal is whether the respondent -landlord is entitled to rely on the exception provided by cl. (c), sub-cl. ( i ), of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 13 of the Control Act of 1952.

(3.) The learned trial judge by his judgment dated June 11, 1956 gave a decree in favour of the respondent-landlord. One of the questions raised before the learned trial Judge was whether the respondent landlord had acquiesced in the sub-letting in favour of the appellant. The learned trial Judge decided against the appellant on the question of acquiescence. There was then an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge of Delhi. The learned Subordinate Judge found - (1) that the sub-letting had commenced not later than November, 1950, and (2) that thereafter the respondent-landlord continued to receive rent with full knowledge of the sub-letting. On these findings he held that the respondent-landlord was not entitled to avail himself of the exception stated in cl. (c), sub-cl. ( i ), of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 13 of the Control Act of 1952. The learned Subordinate Judge gave his judgment on June 11, 1957. It has to be noted that these judgments were given prior to the coming into force of the Control Act of 1958. That Act came into force on February 9, 1959. On August 26, 1957 the respondent -landlord moved the High Court of Punjab in revision under S.35 of the Control Act of 1952. When the revision was pending in the High Court, the Control Act of 1958 came into force. The High Court held that there was no evidence to justify the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the respondent -landlord had acquiesced in the sub-letting of the room in favour of the appellant, and the case being one where there is no evidence to justify a finding, it was open to the High Court to interfere in revision. The question of the true scope and effect of S.57 of the Control Act of 1958 was agitated before the High Court and the High Court held that by reason of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of S. 57 of the Control Act of 1958, the revision before it had to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Control Act of 1952. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition in revision and restored the decree for possession made by the trial Court. The appellant then moved this court for special leave and having obtained such leave has preferred the present appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court dated December 13, 1962.