RAM NATH Vs. GIRDHARI LAL, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Nath is owner of certain godowns situated in Mandi Rui, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He gave on lease two of these godowns to Girdhari Lal and Gopi Ram on a monthly rent of Rs. 113/7/- inclusive of house tax. This rent was payable according to Hindi months. The premises were let for a fixed term of four years which expired on 13th of December, 1951. In April, 1949, the tenants sublet the premises to Bhatia Oil Mills. The rent was increased to Rs. 117/11/- including House Tax with effect from 1st of October, 1949, on account of increase in the rate of the House Tax. The sub-tenants paid rent from the date of their occupation of the premises in 1949 till 14th of December, 1951 to Ram Nath landlord. On 9th of August, 1952, Ram Nath filed a suit for eviction of the tenants and the sub-tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent even after notice of demand and also on the ground of unautorised subletting. In other words he sought eviction of the tenants and the sub-tenants under section 13(1)(a) and section 13(2) for non-payment of arrears of rent then due and for unauthorised subletting under section 13(1)(b) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (No. XXXVIII of 1952). Other issues also arose out of the pleadings between the parties but it is not necessary to refer to them in this judgment as these matters were not raised before me. The Trial Court rejected both these grounds and dismissed the suit so far as it related to ejectment. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by the Senior Sub-Judge. He has now filed this application for revision under section 35 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner the only points raised before me were (1) that deposit of arrears of rent by sub-tenants as distinct from tenants was not in accordance with law and (2) that in any case the deposit was inadequate. There is no substance in the first point. It has been found by the lower Courts that the sub-lease was authorised in view of the terms of the lease between the plaintiff and his tenant which authorised the tenants to sublet the premises but on subletting the liability of the tenants to pay the rent remained in tact. Further it has been found that the landlord accepted rent from the subtenants from December, 1949 till December, 1951. These findings are not challenged before me. It is true that the landlord is not bound to accept rent from any person other than the tenant otherwise he runs the risk of creating a tenancy by estoppel. In the present case, however, the tenants had a right to sublet the premises and this right was exercised by them. The landlord recognised the sub-tenants by accepting rent from them for about two years. In such circumstances the landlord is bound to accept rent from the sub-tenant although his right to realise rent from the tenants remains unimpaired. It follows therefore that the sub-tenants could deposit the arrears of rent under section 13 of the Rent Control Act. This view is fortified by the definition of 'tenant' given in section 2(j) which reads-

(3.) This definition includes a person by whom rent is payable and also includes such sub-tenants who derived title under the tenant before the commencement of the 1952 Act. The sub-tenants in the present case satisfy both these conditions as rent is payable by them and their title was derived in 1949-50 which is before the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 came into force.