SHYAM KUMARI GUPTA Vs. SHANKER SAHAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the applicant. The suit was for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. The suit was based on the allegation that the defendant had unlawfully sublet the accommodation and had defaulted in payment of rent. The Court found that the defendants had sublet with plaintiff's consent and that he had defaulted in payment of rent bat since they deposited the entire rent due in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Rent Control Act of 1972, he was relieved of the liability of ejectment. The plaintiff was directed to withdraw the deposits made. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submits that the finding with res­pect to subletting with consent of the landlord is based on circumstantial evi­dence. Admittedly, there was no writing of the landlord granting consent or permission to the defendants to sublet the premises. That is apparent from a reading of the judgment. The trial Court has inferred implied consent from the conduct of the landlord, the tenant and the sub-tenant.

(3.) IN the present case, the finding is that the sub-tenants were there in the premises s nice before the plaintiff purchased the property and become its land­lord. That was very many years back. Ever since she had suffered the exis­tence of the sub-tenants in the building. The finding is that the plaintiff in 1971 gave notice to the tenant complaining of illegal subletting but thereafter she took no action. She filed the present suit in 1975. The Court below had referred to certain documents showing that the plaintiff's son had been receiv­ing rent from the sub-tenants. The Court below inferred that the sub-tenants were in occupation with the consent of the landlord. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the finding that the landlord was barred by the principle of acquiescence was vitiated by any jurisdictional defect or error. The plaintiff was clearly disentitled to the relief of ejectment. Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to Section 7 (3) of the Rent Control Act of 1947 which provided: