G L KAPOOR Vs. RAMESH CHANDER NIJHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent landlord obtained an order for eviction against the original tenant Kishan Chand Mehra and his sub-tenants Madan Lal Jagg', Oriental Carriers (P ) Ltd. G.L. Kapoor ana Dhillon Transport Company on the ground that a part of the premises was sublet by the tenants to the sub-tenants after the 9th day of June, 1952 without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. The order for eviction was passed by the Controller under clause (b) of the proviso to s 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) The tenant and the sub-tenants appealed to the Rent Control Tribunal. But during the pendency of the appeal the tenant withdrew the appeal. The appeal of the sub-tenants was dismissed on merits by the Tribunal. The present second appeal against the order of the Tribunal is filed by one of the sub-tenants only, namely, G. L Kapoor.

(2.) The first question for decision is whether a sub-tenant can file this appeal when the tenant himself chose to withdraw his appeal before the Tribunal. The law is clear on this subject. An ordinary sub-tenant has his privity of contract and estate with the tenant only. He has no relationship in law with the landlord. The landlord's relationship is only with the tenant. He does not recognise the sub-tenants at all. This is why both under the Transfer of Property Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree by the landlord against a tenant js sufficient for the landlord to obtain the possession of the premises from the tenant even though the premises may be occupied by sub-tenants. For, the sub-tenants claim their title only through the tenant and when the title of the tenant ilself comes to an end the sub-tenants go out along with the tenant. This legal position is further confirmed by section 25 of the Act, which expressly lays down that the order for eviction made by the Controller against the tenant shall, subject to the provisions of section 18, be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the premises and vacant possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons therefrom. The proviso to section 25 says that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who has an independent title to such premises. It is clear that the sub tenants have no independent title to the premises. Their only title is through the tenant. Under the substantive part of section 25, therefore, they go oat of possession with the tenant.

(3.) The only exception to the rule laid down in section 25 is enacted in section 18 of the Act. Section 18 protects the possession of a lawful sub-tenant who becomes a tenant in his own right after the original tenant is evicted. The only question therefore, is whether the appellant can claim to be a lawful sub-tenant protected by section 18'. It is clear that he is not entitiled to such protection. Firstly, no consent in writing of the landlord has been obtained to the creation of his sub-tenancy as required both by clause (b) of the proviso to section 14(1) and sub-section (2) of section 16 of the Act. Secondly, no notice of the creation of the sub-tenancy was given to the landlord either by the tenant or by the sub-tenants under section 17 of the Act.