K K DHAWAN Vs. PROMILA SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent's predecessor in interest i.e. their mother Smt.Nirmal Kanta Suri filed a petition seeking eviction of M/s Morarji Gokuldass Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `The Company') under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act) premises bearing No. 29 (Ist Floor), Babar Road, New Delhi on the ground that the company sub-let the same to the present appellant Shri K.K.Dhawan. This present appellant was subsequently impleaded as respondent No. 2. Smt. Nirmal Kanta Suri died during the pendency of that petition. Present respondents were brought on record as her legal heirs. That the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ARC) on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced and after analysing the same the learned ARC concluded that the Company sub-let the premises to the present appellant. He accordingly passed a decree of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act against this appellant and the company.

(2.) This appellant preferred an appeal. His appeal was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) vide the impugned order. The Tribunal confirmed the finding of the learned ARC, thereby holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between those respondents and the Company. No relationship of landlord and tenant existed with Mr.K.K.Dhawan, therefore, concluded that the company sub-let the tenanted premises to this appellant.

(3.) Aggrieved by the impugned order this second appeal was preferred. The question of law raised are that there existed oral agreement thereby creating lease between Mrs.Nirmal Kanta Suri and this appellant on 1st June, 1980 i.e. when she accepted the rent and gave possession of the premises to him. Secondly the appellant became direct tenant of Mrs. Nirmal Kanta Suri because she accepted the rent from him and recognised him as a tenant. This conduct of the landlady of accepting the rent from him with the knowledge of his occupation of tenanted premises lead to only one conclusion that the intention of the parties was to create a relationship of landlord and tenant. The appellant also raised the question that at no point of time he surrendered the possession or the lease of the premises. Moreover, there is no absolute prohibition against sub-letting under the Act.