HARGOPAL MEHRA Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is from the order of Rent Control Tribunal. Delhi, dated 5th of November, 1961 by which the judgment of Rent Controller, Delhi concluding that the landlord had cause of action, was set aside.

(2.) The question, subject matter for decision, had arisen in the following circumstances. The property (House) in dispute was an evacuee property. The authorities under the Evacuee Act tenanted it to Nand Lal. In the year 1955 Nand Lal inducted a sub-tenant Ram Sarup by name. In 1956 the said property was purchased by one Sat Parkash. It might be stated that the property meanwhile had been acquired under Section 12 of the Displaced Persons. (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, was sold and it was in auction that said Sat Parkash had purchased the same. In the year 1958 Sat Parkash sold his light, title and interest in the said property to Hargopal and Rama Shankar. On 19th of November, 1963 the owners Hargopal and Rama Shankar maintained an application for eviction of the tenant Nand Lal on the ground of subletting without the written concent of the landlord. Process issued to the tenant. On the return having been filed an application was moved on 13th of March 1961 by the tenant pleading that there was no cause of action and, therefore, landlord's petition ought to be dismissed. The contention raised was that at the time the sub-letting took place, e.g. in 1955, the property was with the Custodian and, therefore. Rent Act did not apply. The learned Rent Controller after directing notice to the landlords tried this matter as preliminary issue for it concerned the jurisdiction of the Controller. The Rent Controller while dismissing the petition of the tenant concluded that the landlord had a cause of action, because when the petition for eviction was filed the provisions of Rent Control Act 1958 were in force, and that the oral sub-tenancy created had not matured into a lawful sub-tenancy as contemplated by the Act 1958. Learned Judge of the Rent Control Tribunal, on appeal, however, came to a contrary conclusion. It is found :-

(3.) In the result, as already observed, order of the Rent Controller was reversed and application for ejectment filed by the landlords, respondents Nos 1 and 2, was dismissed because the landlords were held to have had no cause of action.