N DUTT Vs. SAT PARKASH BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sat Parkash Bhasin and Sardari Lal Bhasin. here in referred to as 'the landlords', are the two owners of the premises in dispute, which were let out by them to one Mrs. Miran Gupta, herein referred to as 'the tenant' The premises, however, are in the occupation of Mr. N. Dutt, herein referred to as 'the subtenant' who is Director, Nalanda Public College and to whom the same were sub-let by the tenant. The landlords filed an application for eviction of the tenant, from the suit premises on the ground that the tenant, inter-alia, had without their consent sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises in dispute in favour of Mr. N. Dutt who was also made a party to the eviction petition. The landlords applied under section 15(2) of the Act for direction for the payment of the arrears of rent and future rent. It was the sub-tenant, who contested the application. The Additional Controller rejected the subtenant's pleas and ordered him to pay the arrears of rent with effect from February 1, 1967 at the agreed rate of Rs. 500.00 per month within one month. In appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal accepted the plea of the sub-tenant and held that he was a mere sub-tenant and not a tenant hable to pay rent to the landlords. There was no privity of contract between them. For this reason the directions to the sub-tenant to pay rent were set aside, The landlords have filed a second appeal in this court being S.A.O. 426 of 1968.

(2.) After the matter went back to the Controller fromthe Rent Control Tribunal, the sub-tenant prayed for fixation of standard rent. The landlords raised objection that the liability of the sub-tenant to pay rent has been negatived. He, therefore, is not entitled to get the sandard rent fixed. The Additional Controller disallowed the sub-tenant's prayer for adducing evidence lor fixation of standard rent. In appeal, The Rent Control Tribunal agreed with the Additional Controller and dismissed the appeal It held that N. Dutt was admittedly a sub-tenant and as such had no right to set an a plea for fixation of standard rent. The sub-tenant feeling aggrieved by this order has come up in second appeal, which is S.A.O. 29 of 1969. Both the appeals, S.A.O. 426 of 1968 and S. A. O. 29 of 1969 are being disposed of by this judgment.

(3.) The learned counsel for both the parties have referred to the definition of the word 'tenant' given inclause (1) of section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The learned counsel for the landlords relies on the said definition for repelling the argument on behalf of the sub-tenant that be was not a tenant under the landlords and had no privity of contract with them and could not, therefore, be called upon to pay to them arrears of rent. The learned counsel for the sub- tenant relies on the said definition to support his contention that the sub-tenant can ask for fixation of standard rent as he is deemed to be a tenant by virtue of the said definition.