GURMAUJ SARAN BALUJA Vs. M R SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the very outset, I must confess to a feeling that it will be difficult to come across a more frivolous case so tenaciously and vehemently argued. This Second Appeal under Section 09 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, has been filed against the orders of the Rent Contoller affilmed by the. Tribunal, rejecting the application of the appellant for eviction of the respondent.

(2.) The application for eviction was filed by the appellant on the ground that the respondent had sub-let a portion of the premises to one Dr. Razdan. The Controller in paragraph 7 of his order observed as follows :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant inspite of these admissions and findings strenuously argued that the conclusions of the Tribunal are wrong because the respondent admitted that he sub-let the premises. There is absolutely no warrant for such a contention. On the ether hand, the father of the appellant who was the original landlord who let out the premises in 1954 admitted that when he was the landlord. Dr. Razdan came to occupy the portion of the premises in question. Under these circumstances, the factual position that emerges is that the respondent herein did not sub-let the premises but the father of the respondent who was the previous tenant sub-let a portion of the premises in 1955. On these facts, the question that arises is whether the Respondent 1s liable to eviction on the ground that the previous tenant sub-let a portion of the premises. The learned counsel for the appellant could not draw my attention to any principle of law or authority on the basis of which the respondent herein can be said to have incurred the liability for eviction. He referred to a decision of the Punjab High Court in Pruan Singh v. Raja Ram. In that case, it was held that a transferee from a landlord can seek ejectment of the tenant who sub-let the building without the consent of the previous landlord who had transferred the building. That decision has nothing whatever to do with the point which arises in this particular case. The learned counsel for the appellant then referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Pooran Chand v. Moti Lal In that case, the question whether a tenant can be evicted on the ground of a previous tenant having sub-let a portion of the premises never arose and so was not decided and, consequently, that decision has no application whatever to the present case. In my opinion, the proper interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, will be that a tenant will be liable for eviction only if he sublets the premises without the consent of the landlord. If even at the time when he became a tenant, a portion of the premises had already been sub-let by a previous tenant, for that sub letting the present tenant does not became liable for eviction. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there are absolutely no merits in this Second Appeal and the said Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. The counsels fee is fixed at Rs. 250.00