HOLKAR MALL Vs. MUNSHI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the landlord under section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the appellate order of the Rent Control Tribunal, dated 5th April, 1969, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Additional Controller, dated 21 st March, 1967, dismissing the petition of the appellant, filed for eviction on the ground inter alia of unlawful subletting. In this appeal, respondent No. 1 is the tenant, while respondent No. 3 is the alleged sub-tenant. Respondent No. 2, Tara Chand, claims to be the co-owner of the property and he has been proceeded against ex parte.

(2.) The material facts of the case are that a large property or Katra comprising of several premises was purchased by the appellant and others in December, 1955 from ore Abdul Ghani and in 1956 there was a partition, amongst the owners and the premises in dispute have allegedly fallen to the share of the appellant. Three shops bearing Nos. 2247, 2249 and 2275 and the lalakhana (i.e. residential accommodation on the first floor above them) were inter alia in the tenancy of Munshi Lal, first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') since a very long time. Shop No. 2249 is at present in possession of the third respondent and it is the validity of his sub-tenancy which is in dispute in this appeal. The landlord (appellant herein) instituted a petition for eviction on 26th May, 1962 on the ground inter alia that the respondent tenant had unlawfully sublet the tenanted premises to a number of sub-tenants who had subsequently been impleaded as respondents in the petition. The petition has been amended more than once and I will take into consideration the last amended petition. It was asserted that all the sublettings had taken place after 9th June, 1952 and so constituted a ground for eviction specified in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act. At the hearing of the petition, the appellant landlord conceded that the other impugned subletting had been made prior to 9th June, 1952 and so did not constitute a ground for eviction but with regard to the third respondent herein, it was maintained that his subletting in respect of shop No. 2249 was subsequent to the aforesaid date and was, therefore, actionable. The petition was contested by respondent No. 1 as well as by respondent No. 3. With regard to subletting in dispute (namely, to respondent No. 3), the contention of the first respondent was that the third respondent was a lawful sub-tenant who had occupied part of shop No. 2249 since 1948 under Jai Kishan Dass Goyal, who was a sub-tenant of respondent No. 1 in the said shop and thereafter Jai Kishan Das Goyal transferred the possession of the entire shop to Hans Raj Kailash Chand, respondent No. 3 and subsequently respondent No. 1 accepted respondent No. 3 as his direct tenant with the consent of Bhani Ram Gupta, the General Attorney of the appellant and respondent No. 2, Tara Chand; a photostat copy of the said written consent of Bhani Ram Gupta was filed with the reply. The stand of the third respondent was that he was a lawful sub-tenant of Munshi Lal with the written consent as well as oral consent of the previous owner Abdul Ghani and so his sub-tenancy was legal. The Additional Controller came to the conclusion that none of the alleged sublettings had taken place subsequent to 9th June, 1952 and so the petition for eviction was dismissed. On appeal, the Rent Control Tribunal held that Jai Kishan who was a sub-tenant in respect of the shop in dispute (No. 2249) under respondent No. 1 since 1948 gave a portion of shop to respondent No. 3 in 1948 and the other in 1951 and the remaining portion in 1956 when he transferred the whole shop in favour of respondent No. 3 and thereafter in 1956 Munshi Lal respondent No. 1 recognised respondent No. 3 as his direct tenant. The Tribunal also found that the case of the written consent of the landlord set up by the respondent-tenants was based on highly suspicious document and so rejected the contention. The Tribunal, however, found that the subletting to respondent No. 3 was not unlawful but it proceeded to observe that the mere fact that Munshi Lal had recognised respondent No. 3 in 1957-58 did not bring the case within the statutory provision entitling eviction. On this finding, the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant has challenged the finding of the Tribunal as being contrary to law. The position emerging from the record and on the accepted evidence of the parties appears to be this : Respondent No. 1, Munshi Lal, is a tenant in respect of the three shops in dispute and by operation of law he has become a tenant of the appellant, Jai Kishan Dass was a sub-tenant under Munshi Lal in respect of the shop in dispute, viz. No. 2249, out of the entire tenanted premises. Jai Kishan Dass had obviously come in the possession of the shop in 1948. Subsequently he gave its possession to respondent No. 3 was, therefore, holding under Jai Kishan Dass and not under the tenant respondent No. 1 till 1956 or so.