RAJA RAM GOYAL Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal, filed by Shri Raja Ram Goyal tenant, is directed against the order dated January 11, 1974, of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, affirming the finding and order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, passing an order in favour of the respondents-landlords for ejectment of the appellant from premises No. 2218 Masjid Khajoor, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Premises in dispute) on account of unlawful sub-letting under section 14(l)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) On June 9, 1970, the respondents brought the petition for eviction, out of which this second appeal has arisen, under section 14 of the Act on the ground of sub-letting, assigning and parting with the possession without obtaining the written consent of the landlords after June 9, 1952. In para 16 of the petition, it was stated that the sub-tenants, namely, Shri Hans Raj and Shri Ram Bakhsh have been inducted by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord during the years 1963-64. It was further averred that the rent-note executed by the tenant in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi, the then owner of the premises in dispute, did not amount to a written consent in law and if it did, it was only for a period of 11 months, i.e., the duration of the rent-note. In the written statement dated August 11, 1970 filed by the tenant, it was admitted that Shri Hans Raj and Shri Ram Bakhsh are the sub-tenants in different portions of the premises in dispute, but it was pleaded that they are lawful sub-tenants. It was further pleaded that the respondents are bound by the terms and conditions of the tenancy as mentioned in rent-note dated February 12, 1961, according to which the tenant has the right to sub-let any portion or whole of the premises to anybody.

(3.) Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, who tried the petition, by his order dated March 20, 1973, granted the petition for eviction 'under section 14(1 )(b) of the Act. The Additional Rent Controller held that Ex. A-6 is the copy of the order of the permission granted by the Competent Authority (Slum), that the tenancy stood validly determined, that the term contained in the rent-note regarding the sub-letting did not amount to the consent in writing of the landlord and that in any case .the said authority became ineffective after the expiry of II months, i.e., the period for which the tenancy had been granted under rent note Ex. A-7. In the appeal against the aforesaid order dated March 20, 1973, the above findings were affirmed by Shri Gian Chand Jain, Rent Control Tribunal vide order dated 11-1-1974, which order is now in second appeal before me.