LAL CHAND Vs. GOPI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal against Order has come up before us on a reference by B. C. Misra J. The said second appeal has been filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act No. 59 of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act) by Lal Chand (landlord) against the appellate order of Mr. M. L. Jain, Rent Control Tribunal, dated 15th May, 1969, in Rent Control Appeal No. 237 of 1967, whereby he dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of Mr. P. K. Bahri, 1st Additional Controller, dated 10th January, 1967, in Suit No. 950 of 1962, dismissing a petition for eviction filed by Lal Chand against the respondents herein on the ground of unlawful subletting.

(2.) The premises in question bears No. 73, Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, and belongs to Lal Chand. It was let out by Lal Chand to Gopi Krishan Nath Mal, respondent 1 herein, sometime in 1934. According to the concurrent findings of the first Additional Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, sometime before 9th June, 1952, respondent 1 sublet various portions of the premises to respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5. Again, sometime before the aforesaid date, respondent 3 sublet a portion of the premises to respondent 6. The first Additional Controller as well as the Tribunal held that the said sub-lettings were lawful since they had taken place prior to 9th June, 1952, and requisite notices under Section 17 of the Rent Control Act had been served on respondents 2 to 6. The first Additional Controller and the Tribunal, however, found that respondent 6 sublet a portion of the premises to respondents 7 and 8 subsequent to 9th June, 1952, without the written consent of Lal Chand (landlord), and held that the said subletting was, therefore, unlawful.

(3.) On 27th July, 1962, the landlord filed the petition which has given rise to the present second appeal praying for the eviction of the tenant, respondent 1, as well as the subtenants, respondents 2 to 8, on the ground of unlawful subletting. The first Additional Controller, by his order, dated 10th January, 1967, dismissed the petition as against respondents I to 5 as he found the subletting to be lawful. As regards respondents 6 to 8 also, the first Additional Controller dismissed the petition on the ground that although the subletting by respondent 6 to respondents 7 and 8 was unlawful inasmuch as the subletting was subsequent to 9th June, 1952, without the written consent of the landlord, no order of eviction could be passed against them under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Rent Control Act, inasmuch as the said subletting had not been made by the tenant, Gopi Krishan Nath Mal, respondent I, but had been made by the subtenant, respondent 6. In support of the said view, the first Additional Controller relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S. Sarun Singh and others, A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 346(1). In the result, the first Additional Controller dismissed the petition for eviction against all the respondents.