DAULAT SINGH CHADHA Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the appellant a lawful sub-tenant and if so, is he protected under sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act? This is the question in this second appeal which needs to be decided. However, first a bird eye view of the facts.

(2.) Rajender Kumar and Radhey Shyam alongwith their mother Smt. Chandra Wati were the landlords of the premises. They had let out the same to one Sudha Rajan Jain. This was on June 1, 1978. In the year 1979 the landlords filed a petition for eviction of Sudha Rajan Jain on the ground of non-payment of rent underclause. (a) of sub-section (l)ofSection 14oftheAct in which an exparte order of eviction was passed on February 8, 1980. Thereafter they moved an application for delivery of possession in execution of the said order. While that applicatibn was pending one Amarjit Singh filed objections under section 25 of the Act alleging that he had been inducted as a lawful sub-tenant by Sudha Rajan jain on the basis of the consent in writing of the landlords permitting her to sub let the premises and that even a notice as required under section 17 of the Act with regard to the creation of sub-tenancy had been not only served personally but sent under certificate of posting also. He thus claimed that he was protected under section 17 read with section 18 of the Act and consequently could not be dispossessed in execution of the order of eviction. Needless to say the decree-holders found the objections unpalatable and stoutly resisted the same.

(3.) The learned Additional Rent Controller before whom the objections were filed under Section 25 of the Act held that the appellant was not a lawful sub-tenant and that in any case no notice of sub-tenancy as required under section 17 of the Act had been proved to have been served. He, therefore, dismissed the jection petition. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal found no fault with the order of the Additional Rent Controller and agreeing with him dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal.