VED PARKASH Vs. RASHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ved Parkash is the owner of the house situated in Bazar Chilli Kabar, Delhi which had been let out by him to one Noor Hasan. On July 15, 1961, Ved Parkash filed an application for ejectment of Noor Hasan Under Section l4 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the Act. On September 22, 1961, an eviction order was passed against the said tenant, who had admitted the claim ofVed Parkash,the landlord. It appears that the house was under the occupation of one Rashid, who claimede to be a lawful sub-tenant After obtaining permission from the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, Ved Parkash took out execution proceedings in order to evict Rashid, the occupant. It was at this stage that Rashid filed an application under sections 16, 18 and 25 of the Act, contending that he was not bound by the decree of eviction as he was a lawful sub-tenant and had become the direct tenant under Ved Parkash the decr ee-holder.decree-for being impleaded in the proceeding. He also stated that he preferred his claim even before the Competent Authority uader the Slum Areas (Improvement & Cleirance) Act, but without success. The objections of Rashid, however, were resisted by Ved Parkash.

(2.) . On January 15, 1968 the Rent Controller held that the objectorRashid was a lawful tenant under NOOR Hisan, since before June, ,1952! The decree in favour of Ved Parkish was said to have been obtained in collusion with Noor Hasan . Accordiag to the Controller Rashid should have been made a party to the ejectment proceedinge was collusive, the Controller declined to execute it, on the condition that Rashid paid the arrears of rent with effect from May 1, 1964. Dealing with the objection of the decree-holder that no notice had been served under section 17 of the Act, the Controller held that Rashid, as a result thereof, had not become a direct tenant under the landlord, but all the same, he was a lawful sub-tenant and therefore, not liable to eviction.

(3.) . In appeal by Ved Parkash, Lundlord, the Rent Control Tribunal held that in the absence of notice under section 17(2) of the Act. Rashid was not entitled to protection from eviction as he had not been no a direction under the landlard. Althought, a lawful sab--cement unle No .Aasan , he could not claim any protection agaonst evict on The order of the Contralle: was accordingly, set aside The objectionof Rashid were dismissed and he was held to be liab'e to eviction in execution of the decree in favour of Ved Parkash Rishid has filed a second appeal to this Cour", which is S.A.O. 39 of 1959. Ved Parkash, the landlord, has also filed an appeal against the finding of the Triounali to the effect Rashid was a hawul sub-teant. The said appeal is S A.O.344of 1969. This order will dispose of the after aforesaid appeals.