Hem Chand and Ors. Vs. Hari Kishan Rohtagi and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 9116-17 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.96 of the High Court in S.A.O. No. 112 and 113 of 1979)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.96 of the High Court in S.A.O. No. 112 and 113 of 1979)
Petitioner: Hem Chand and Ors.
Respondent: Hari Kishan Rohtagi and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 9116-17 of 1996
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.96 of the High Court in S.A.O. No. 112 and 113 of 1979)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.96 of the High Court in S.A.O. No. 112 and 113 of 1979)
Judges: SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 25, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. Ashok Grover, Senior Advocate, Mr. N.M. Popli, Ms. Anupama Grover, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Bharat Sangal, Advocates with him for the Appellants.
Mr. S.K. Bagga, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rajinder Mathur and Mr. Seeraj Bagga, Advocates with him for the Respondents.
Head Note:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956
Section 14(1)(b) – Sub-letting – Pleadings showing two sub-tenants out of eight, inducted without his consent – Others inducted with consent – All forums directing eviction of one of the sub-tenants inducted without consent. Held that in view of the pleadings eviction of tenants was not justified. Only sub-tenant was rightly directed to be evicted. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The dissatisfied landlord is in appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in second appeal nos. 112-113/1979 dated February 23, 1996.
2. The appellants filed suit no. E-384/70 in the court of Shri M.A. Khan, VI additional rent controller, Delhi seeking eviction of respondent nos.1 to 5 on three grounds; however, the only ground which survives, is provided under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’). The allegation of the appellants was that respondent no. 5 was inducted as sub-tenant without the written consent of the appellants and therefore respondent nos. 1 to 4 who are the ten-ants should be evicted from the said premises. The respondents took the plea that the consent was obtained to sublet the premis-es.
3. The learned rent controller, the rent tribunal and the High Court found that sub-letting in favour of the 5th respondent was without the consent of the appellants and ordered his eviction. However, the grievance of the appellants is that the other six sub-tenants are occupying various portions of the tenanted prem-ises and therefore the courts ought to have ordered eviction of respondent nos.1 to 4 instead of confining the order of eviction to respondent no. 5, one sub-tenant only. It appears from the pleadings that in the eviction petition the landlord stated that out of eight sub-tenants, six sub-tenants were inducted into posses-sion of different portions with his consent. If that be so, neither the tenants nor the sub-tenants could have been ordered to be evicted merely because one of the sub-tenants was inducted into possession of a portion of tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord. So far as respondent nos. 1 to 4 as well as the other sub-tenants are concerned there can be no legitimate complaint of sub-letting because even according to the petition of the appellants they were inducted as the sub-tenants with his consent. This is not a fit case to order eviction of respondents 1 to 4 under section 14(1)(b) of the Act. We therefore find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our inter-ference. The appeals are therefore dismissed, but in the circum-stances of the case, without costs.
1. The dissatisfied landlord is in appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in second appeal nos. 112-113/1979 dated February 23, 1996.
2. The appellants filed suit no. E-384/70 in the court of Shri M.A. Khan, VI additional rent controller, Delhi seeking eviction of respondent nos.1 to 5 on three grounds; however, the only ground which survives, is provided under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’). The allegation of the appellants was that respondent no. 5 was inducted as sub-tenant without the written consent of the appellants and therefore respondent nos. 1 to 4 who are the ten-ants should be evicted from the said premises. The respondents took the plea that the consent was obtained to sublet the premis-es.
3. The learned rent controller, the rent tribunal and the High Court found that sub-letting in favour of the 5th respondent was without the consent of the appellants and ordered his eviction. However, the grievance of the appellants is that the other six sub-tenants are occupying various portions of the tenanted prem-ises and therefore the courts ought to have ordered eviction of respondent nos.1 to 4 instead of confining the order of eviction to respondent no. 5, one sub-tenant only. It appears from the pleadings that in the eviction petition the landlord stated that out of eight sub-tenants, six sub-tenants were inducted into posses-sion of different portions with his consent. If that be so, neither the tenants nor the sub-tenants could have been ordered to be evicted merely because one of the sub-tenants was inducted into possession of a portion of tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord. So far as respondent nos. 1 to 4 as well as the other sub-tenants are concerned there can be no legitimate complaint of sub-letting because even according to the petition of the appellants they were inducted as the sub-tenants with his consent. This is not a fit case to order eviction of respondents 1 to 4 under section 14(1)(b) of the Act. We therefore find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our inter-ference. The appeals are therefore dismissed, but in the circum-stances of the case, without costs.
