HEM CHAND Vs. HARI KISHAN JAYNA CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts : Appellants had leased out suit premises to respondents 1 to 4 by means of lease deed dt. 30.5.57. who had sub-let portions of premises per consent in deed. Alleging that some portions have been unlawfully sub-let in 1965 & 1969 to respdt, 5, they obtained permission u/S 19 of Slum Areas Act on 4.6.70 and sued respdt. for eviction u/S. 14 (i) (b), (c) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Respdts. 1 to 4 alone contested and filed separate w/Ss contending that they had not sub-let any portion to respdt 5 and they had sub-let same to one MK. Bhatia who had done unlawful sub-letting to respdt. 5 and that they have applied for permission to sue respdt. 5. They also alleged that one Manak Chand was co-owner and co-landlord. Respdt. no. 5 also took the same position contending that Manak Chand was necessary party and in his absence it was a case of partial eviction. Reply of three appellants was that partition had taken place between them and Manak Chand and respdts. were tenants of their portion. ARC held that there was no evidence that Manak Chand was co-landlord and that respdt. 1 to 4 lawful sub-tenants while respdt. 5 was authorised in a portion and unlawful sub-tenant of a hall, 2 Dallans and 2 stores; that the lease of 30 5.57 was only for 11 months and it permitted sub-letting only once and it was not a case of partial eviction. Respdts. 1 to 4 and respdt. 5 filed separte appeals RC Tribunal upheld the finding that respdt. 5 was an unlawful sub-tenant but did not grant eviction on the ground that Manak Chand continued to be co-landlord and the portion that had fallen to his share had not been separated and there was splitting of rent, Rs. 245.00 to appellants and Rs. 25.00 to Manak Chand, there was no splitting of tenancy and no severence of tenanted premises. Appeals were allowed and landlords appealed to High Court, contending that sub-letting to respdt. 5 was unlawful being in violation of lease deed dt. 30.5 57. High Court reproduced relevant portions of the deed.] After detailing above, judgement is :

(2.) The reading of the above document will indicate that the tenants were authorised to sublet any portion of the property under their tenancy only once. In the present case, respondents 1 to 4 have sub-let the hall two Dalans and two stores more than once and the letting in favour of respondent No. 5, is. therefore, unauthorised. The plea taken by respondents that they were not bound by the terms of the lease deed dated May 30, 1957 and in fact were bound by the lease-deed dated June 1, 196l.was repelled as the respondent- at no stage of the proceedings, produced the alleged document dated June 1, 1961 Therefore, the courts correctly placed reliance on lease-deed dated May 30, 1957 to establish the rights inter-se between the parties. 10. The learned counsel for respondents have half-heartedly contended that the respondents were not, in any manner, restricted by the lease-deed dated May 30, 1957 and it was open for them to sublet the premises to any one any number of times. Alternatively, it has been argued that the second or third subletting, in any manner, has not been proved as the case of Bankey Behari Lal was not even pleaded in the eviction petition. The changed stance taken by respondents, in this Court will not improve their case. The law is well settled, firstly, that there must be a specific subletting and the consent must be to such a specific subletting, secondly that the lease-deed dated May 30, 1957 was fora limited period of 11 months and after that period expired, the tenancy came to an end by efflux of time and the respondents/tenants could not sublet the portions in question to respondent No. 5. This is so held by the learned ARC as the genesis of sub-letting will then be governed by the provision of law as contained in Section 14(1 )(b) of the Act, which lays down that the tenant shall not sub-let assign or otherwise part with possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord. In the present case, no such consent has been established by the respondents.

(3.) The Supreme Court has also settled the law in M/s Shalimar Tar Products Ltd., v. HC. Sharma AIR 1988 Supreme Court 145; Shantilal v. M/s Vega Trading Corp. AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1819; M/s Bajaj Auto Limited v. Behari Lal Kohli AIR 1989 Supreme Court 1806; Dull Chand v. Jagmender Dass 40 (1990). DLT; M/s Bhoolchand v. M/s Kay Pee Cee Inv. AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2053 and Rajinder Singh v. Dalip Chand 1995(2) Rent Law Reporter 301.