HIRA LAL Vs. PADAM SINGH JAIN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal filed by the tenant is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 28th February 1984 whereby the appeal filed by the Respondent No. I-landlord was allowed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for determination of the appeal are as follows: Premises bearing No. 5292-5295 at No. 40 Shardanand Marg, Delhi originally belonged to one Shri Ram Dev. On 20th August 1953 the propty was gifted to one Shri Sushil Kumar Bhutani by way of a gift deed. Shri Sushil Kumar Bhutani, therefore became the owner. The present landlord i.e. respondent No. I herein purchased the property from Shri Sushil Kumar Bhutani on 14th April 1964. One Mst. Raj Kanwar was the tenant in respect of three rooms, Kitchen bath and latrine on the second floor in the said property at the monthly rent of Rs. 33.00 Mst. Raj Kanwar continued to pay rent to respondent No. I from 14th May 1964 to 31st March .1965, however thereafter in May 1965 Mst. Raj Kanwar left Delhi for her home town where she is stated to have died Respondent No. I-landlord came to know about the death of Mst. Raj Kanwar in August 1968 and, therefore, in October 1968 he moved a petition for eviction of the present appellant and respondents 2 to 5 alleging that they have no right to stay in the premises because they had no tenancy right. That petition was however dismissed as not maintainable under the Delhi Rent Control Act because no relatioaship of landlord and tenant was alleged. Respondent No. I filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 18th November 1972. The respondents-landlord, therefore , accepted the appellant as legal heir of Mst. Raj Kanwar and made a demand for rent from the appellant on 1st August 1975. The appellant failed to deposit the rent inspite of the demand. The respondent No. I therefore filed an eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(l)(a) for non-payment of rent as well as under Section 14(l)(b) on the ground of unlawful sub-letting alleging that 2/3 years before her death Mst. Raj Kanwar sub-let, assigned and parted with possession of two rooms, kitchen and bath in favour of respondents 2 to 5 without the consent of the respondent-landlord or the previous owner. The Additional Rent Controller by his order dated 20th September 1983 dismissed the eviction petition under Section 14(l)(b) however made composite order under Sections 15(1) and 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Respondent No. I, therefore, filed an appeal challenging the order of Additional Rent Controller before the Rant Central Tribunal. The ground of non payment of rent under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act was not pressed but findings of the Controller on the question of sub-letting were seriously assailed. By the impugned order, the Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered eviction of the appellant. It is this order of the Rent Control Tribunal which has been challenged by the appellant in this second appeal.

(3.) It was not disputed by the appellants that the premises were sublet to respondents 2 to 5 but it was contended that the sub-tenancy in favour of respondents 2to 5 was created in the year 1947 and, therefore, under the Delhi Rent Control Act these sub-tenants were protected. In the alternative, it was contended that since respondent No. I had purchased the property in April 1964 and the alleged sub-tenancy was created before he had purchased the property even if it is found that the sub-tenancy was created after 1952, respondent No. I could not seek eviction on the ground of breach committed before he purchased the property. He relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Gugan Mal and others v. M/s. Megi Lal Chund Mal, 1962 Punjab Law Report, P. 372.