DELHI VANASAPATI SYNDICATE Vs. BHAGWAN DAS FAQIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's second appeal under section 39of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal up-holding the order of the Additional Rent Controllerdismissing the application for eviction of the tenant.

(2.) One Kalsum Bi was the owner of the premises bearing municipalNos. 1817 to 1821. M/s. Bhagwan Dass Faqir Chand (hereinaftercalled the Tenant') became a tenant under Mst. Kalsum Bi about25/30 years ago. Portions of the property were sublet from time totime to various persons. A part of the property was sublet to M/s.Delhi Vanaspati Syndicate (hereinatfer called the 'Landlord'). Theentire building was purchased by the landlord in 1958 from Mst.Kalsum Bi through her attorney Habib ul Rehman. Thereafter, anapplication for eviction of the tenant under clauses (b) and (g) of theproviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1958) was made on thegrounds that the tenant had sublet the premises without obtaining theconsent of the land-lord in writing and that the landlord required thebuilding bona fide for the purposes of reconstruction. It was allegedthat shop No. 1818 was sublet in 1955 and that Balakhana, bearingmunicipal No. 1817, was sublet by the tenant to the land-lord somewhere in 1956. The tenant resisted the claim of the landlord for eviction on the ground that he was authorised to sublet and had obtainedconsent in writing from Mst, Kalsumbi. He denied that landlord required the building for reconstruction.

(3.) Mst. Kalsum Bi had served a notice of ejectment on the tenant in1956 (Exh. R-1) on the ground that he had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the part of the tenancy premises without the consent of the landlord (Mst. Kalsum Bi) and substantialdamage had been caused to the premises. By a writing, Exh. R-2.dated 29-6-1956 on the back of notice Exh. R-l, Habib Ul Rehman,Mukhtiar of Mst. Kalsum Bi, cancelled and withdrew the notice inconsideration of the tenant having agreed to pay rent at an enhancedrate of Rs. 185.00 per month instead of Rs. 137/8.00 per month. Simultaneously two rent receipts Exhs. R-26 and R-27 were issued by Habibul Rehman in favour of the tenant. Exh. R-26 was in respect of therent from December, 195 5/04/1956 at the rate of Rs. 137/8.00per month whereas Exh. R-27 was in respect of rent for the month ofMay at the rate of Rs. 185.00 per month. The tenant continued to payrent at this rate till the building was sold to the landlord (Exh. R-27 toR-41). It was thus pleaded that writing Exh. R-2 and the rentreceipts amounted to consent in writing for the acts of sub-letting.