SHRI LAKSHMI CHAND JAIN Vs. SHRIMATI CHEMELI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question for decision in this appeal filed under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter called 'the Act') is whether the application of the respondent for the fixation of standard rent under Section 9 of the Act is barred by limitation under Section 12 thereof. The basis for the application as also for the appellant's defence to the application is to be found in the compromise petition dated 24.11.1960, signed by both the parties in a previous proceeding inter parties. Both the parties are bound by the said compromise. The compromise was effected in the following circumstances. In suit No. 980 of 1964 in the Court of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, the appellant, Lakshmi Chand, had prayed for the eviction of a number of persons including the respondent Chameli Devi, from a building. The admitted facts in the said proceedings are to be found in the compromise petition. One Lal Chand was a tenant holding from the landlord, who was a predecessor in title of appellant. Lakshmi Chand, Lal Chand had sublet parts of the building to various sub-tenants, including the husband of the respondent, Chemeli Devi. The eviction petition was compromised between Lakshmi Chand on the one hand and the respondents including Chameli Devi on the other hand, by the following relevant statements :

(2.) Subsequently, Chameli Devi filed an application for the fixation of standard rent on the 29th March, 1965 on the ground that the premises were first let to her on 1.11.1964. Lakshmi Chand resisted the application on the ground that the tenancy started somewhere in 1961 and the application being made more than two years after the commencement of the tenancy was barred under Section 12 of the Act. The Additional Rent Controller held that the application was barred by time, but the Rent Control Tribunal reversed the Controller's decision holding that the application was not barred by time.

(3.) The question whether the application is barred by time or not depends on the connected question as to when the respondent or her predecessor in-title first became tenants or sub-tenants of the suit premises. Neither of the parties has stated the whole truth in their pleadings in his respect. While Chameli Devi has stated that she became a tenant on 1.11.1964, Lakshmi Chand has stated that the sub-tenancy started somewhere in 1951. We must, therefore, be guided by the admitted statements of the parties in the compromise petition on this point. The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the admission of the parties that the respondent, Chameli Devi, was recognised as a tenant by Lakshmi Chand explicitly because of her assurance that hers was an old tenancy and that her predecessor in title (husband) was lawful sub-tenant and that no fresh tenancy was being created in favour of Chameli Devi by the compromise. This admission of both the parties is in accordance with the evidence given by Chameli Devi that her husband became a sub-tenant of the suit premises more than 23 years ago. This would show that the sub-tenancy began prior to 1950. It is true that at that time a sub-tenancy, which was without the consent of the landlord was not legal and could not be binding on the landlord. From the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 however, the said sub-tenancy became a legal one in view of Section 16(1) thereof. It is enacted therein that where at any time before the 9th Day of June, 1952, a tenant has sublet a part of the premises, then the premises shall be deemed to have been lawfully sublet notwithstanding that the consent of the landlord was not obtained if the sub-tenant is in occupation of such premises at the commencement of the Act. The husband of Chameli Devi is said to have been alive at the commencement of the Act and, therefore, under Section 16(1) thereof he became lawful sub-tenant. At any rate, the respondent, Chameli Devi, is estopped from saying that her husband was not alive commencement of the Act and that the sub-tenancy was not lawful in view of the fact that she was recognised as a tenant by Lakshmi Chand on the express assurance that the sub-tenancy not only old one but also a lawful one and that the tenancy was existed from before. The lawful sub-tenancy could exist only if the original sub-tenant who was granted the sub-tenancy prior to 9.6.1952 continued to be the sub-tenant at the commencement of the Act. In view of the compromise between the parties this position must be taken to have been admitted by both of them.