RATTAN LAL Vs. VARDESH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act' which came up before us on a reference by the learned Single Judge of this Court, raises certain questions with regard to the extent to which the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would govern the relationship of landlord and tenant in the Union Territory of Delhi before the latter Act was extended to the said territory and the further question whether even after its extension, its operation is excluded by the provisions of the Act in relation to tenancies, whether contractual or statutory, which are covered by the Act.

(2.) The facts and circumstances leading to the appeal may be briefly stated. The premises in dispute were let out with effect from May 1, 1954 by a rent note, Ex. AW3/1, of May 19, 1954 by the first respondent, the owner thereof, to the appellant. According to the rent note 'the tenancy was for a period of "less than one year," there was a covenant against sub-letting and in case the tenant committed breach of any of its terms, "the landlord would be entitled to file an action for ejectment without an objection from the tenant." The other respondents are the alleged sub-tenants, who have not contested the proceedings. The first respondent sought the eviction of the appellant from the aforesaid premises on grounds of unlawful sub-letting and acquisition by the appellant of other residential premises, being grounds covered by clauses (b) and (h) respectively of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Both the grounds of eviction prevailed with the Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal and this aspect of the matter, therefore, is beyond controversy. In the application for eviction, the first respondent had stated against column 18 (b) of the application relating to notice that no notice was necessary. The appellant, therefore, raised the question before the Additional Rent Controller that the application for eviction was not maintainable in the absence of a notice to quit before its institution. The objection was reiterated before Tribunal as indeed before the learned Single Judge and before us at the hearing of the Second Appeal. The objection was turned down both by the Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal though for different reasons. The Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that no notice was necessary because the tenancy was for a fixed period, had expired by efflux of time by virtue of clause (a) of Section III of Transfer of Property Act thereby obviating the necessity of a notice. The Tribunal, however, reversed this finding and held that the tenancy could not be said to have been for a fixed term and could not, therefore, have been determined by efflux of time but came to an end on account of forfeiture of the lease by the appellant's act of unlawful sub-letting in terms of clause (g) of Section III of the Transfer of Property Act but that notice in writing to the lessee of the landlord's intention to determine the lease as required by the said clause, was not necessary as the Transfer of Property Act did not then apply to the Union Territory of Delhi and the said requirement not being based on any principle of equity, justice and good conscience, need not be complied with to avail of the forfeiture implying thereby that institution of action for ejectment on account of the breach was sufficient indication of the landlord's intention. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Namdeo Lokman Lodhi(l).

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended on the authority of decision if the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Mohammad (2) and certain decisions of this Court and a decision of the Punjab High Court that even though the Transfer of Property Act did not then apply to Delhi, the principles embodied in Section 111 (g) did being in consonance with the rules of equity, justice and good conscience and that it was still necessary for a reasonable notice in writing of the landlord's intention to re-enter being given to enable the landlord to avail of the forfeiture before an action for ejectment could be filed. It was also contended that on the terms of the lease, it could not be said that lease was not for a fixed term or that there was no provision for re-entry while the learned Judge did not express any opinion on the first question, his Lordship felt inclined to hold that where the tenancy was for a period of "less than one year", it could be said to be indefinite or to be more than one year but having regard to certain decisions of this Court in which a contrary view has been taken, felt. impelled to recommend a reference of the matter to a larger Bench.