KANHIYA LAL BALKISHAN DASS Vs. LABHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment would dispose of S.A.O 110-D of 1962 and R.S.A. 105 of 1967. Both the appeals have been filed by M/s. Kanhiya Lal Balkishan Das. The respondent in S.A.O 110-D of 1962 is Labhu Ram while that in R.S.A. 105 of 1967 is firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath through Jagan Nath partner. The two appeals are being decided by a common judgment as the submission of the learned counsel for the parties is that common questions of law and fact arise in the two cases and the decision in one is bound to impunge upon the decision in the other.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the owner-landlords of the premises in dispute comprising shop No. 3659, Pahari Dhiraj, Saddar Bazar, Delhi. The premises were let out by the appellants to firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath through Jagan Nath on 1-1-1957 at a monthly rent of Rs. 29.00. The firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath was subsequently dissolved on 13-4-1959 and the lessee rights of the premises in dispute fell to the share of Labhu Ram respondent. Labhu Ram filed an aplication under section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for fixation of standard rent on the allegation that the agreed rent was excessive. The appellant-landlords admitted that the shop in dispute had been let out to firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath, but alleged that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Plea was also taken that the shop had been sublet to Labhu Ram without the written permission of the appellant-landlords and as such the application of Labhu Ram was not maintainable,

(3.) The Additional Controller after hearing the paities came to the conclusion that Labhu Ram was a partner of firm Gokal Chand Jagan Nath and on dissolution of that firm he became a tenant by operation of law. The application for fixation of standard rent as such was held to be maintainable. The appellants went up in appeal, but the decision of the Additional Controller was affirmed by learned Rent Control Tribunal. S.A.O. 110-D of 1962 is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal. When the appeal came up for hearing before Dua, C.J., the learned Chief Justice directed that it be disposed of by a larger Bench.