RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. SAVITRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether a landlord can evict a tenant on the ground referred to in clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as "the 1958 Act" in a case where the premises shall be deemed to have been lawfully sub-let within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 16 of the 1958 Act and where the sub-tenant has been and is in occupation ofhe tenancy premises. Clause (d) aforesaid gives a right to the landlord to evict a tenant on the ground that the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof. Concededly, the other grounds of eviction enumerated under the aforesaid proviso will be available to the landlord against the tenant even in a case where the sub-tenant shall be deemed to be a lawful sub-tenant as aforesaid.

(2.) The sub-tenant is the appellant in this appeal. The landlord, Bhagwan Dass deceased who is now represented by his legal representatives, had filed the petition for eviction of his tenant, Balwant Singh, respondent, and the latter's sub-tenant Reghubir Singh, appellant, alleging violation of clauses (b) and (d) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the 1958 Act. The Rent Controller by his order dated October 20, 1967 and, in appeal, the Tribunal by his order dated October 10, 1968 found that the appellant sub-tenant had been in possession of the entire tenancy premises comprising of three rooms, a kitchen and a bath room on the first floor and a Barsati on the second floor of the house bearing Municipal No. 4593, Darya Ganj, South Estate, Delhi, since May 7, 1949, that is, before the relevant date June 9, 1952 and had, therefore, to be deemed to be a lawful sub-tenant within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 16 which provides :-

(3.) The Rent Controller as well as the Tribunal, therefore, held that the landlord was not entitled to an order of eviction on the ground of sub-letting provided by clause (b) of the aforesaid proviso where under the ground for eviction is that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. The finding of the Rent Controller and of the Tribunal that the sub-tenant appellant had been in possession of the tenancy premises since before June 9, 1952 has rightly not been challenged by the respondents in this appeal.