Ved Parkash vs Rashid and Another

P.N. Khamia, J.

(1) Ved Parkash is the owner of the house situated in Bazar Chilli Kabar, Delhi which had been let out by him to one Noor Hasan. On July 15, 1961, Ved Parkash filed an application for ejectment of Noor Hasan u/s 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called ''the Act. On September 22, 1961, an eviction order was passed against the said tenant, who had admitted the claim of Ved Parkash, the landlord. It appears that the house was under the occupation of one Rashid, who claimed to be a lawful sub-tenant After obtaining permission from the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, Ved Parkash took out execution proceedings in order to evict Rashid, the occupant. It was at this stage that Rashid filed an application under sections 16, 18 and 25 of the Act, contending that he was not bound by the decree of eviction as he was a lawful sub-tenant and had become the direct tenant under Ved Parkash the decr ee-holder. decree-for being imp leaded in the proceeding. He also stated that he preferred his claim even before the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance )Act, but without success. The objections of Rashid, however, were resisted by Ved Parkash.

(2) On January 15, 1968 the Rent Controller held that the objector Rashid was a lawful tenant under Noor Hasan since before June, , The decree in favor of Ved Parkish was said to have been obtained in collusion with Noor Hasan . According to the Controller Rashid should have been made a party to the ejectment proceeding was collusive, the Controller declined to execute it, on the condition that Rashid paid the arrears of rent with effect from May 1, 1964. Dealing with the objection of the decree-holder that no notice had been served u/s 17 of the Act, the Controller held that Rashid, as a result thereof, had not become a direct tenant under the landlord, but all the same, he was a lawful sub-tenant and Therefore, not liable to eviction.

(3) In appeal by Ved Parkash, Landlord ,the Rent Control Tribunal held that in the absence of notice u/s 17(2) of the Act. Rashid was not entitled to protection from eviction as he had not been no a direction under the landlord . Although ,a lawful sub--cement unle No .Aasan , he could not claim any protection against evict on The order of the Controller :was accordingly, set aside The objection of Rashid were dismissed and he was held to be liable to eviction in execution of the decree in favor of Ved Parkash Rashid has filed a second appeal to this Court ,which is S.A.O. 39 of 1959. Ved Parkash, the landlord, has also filed an appeal against the finding of the Tribunal to the effect Rashid was a awful sub-tenant. The said appeal is S A.O.344of 1969. This order will dispose of the after aforesaid appeals.

(4) After the passing of ejectment decree, Noor Hasan died and his widow Gafooran had been imp leaded as his legal representative. Glfooran also died and Ved Parkash, the landlord, moved an application for inoleadin the legal representatives of Gafooran, as respondents in his peal before this Court. But the said application has not bee i oppressed and the same is dismissed.

(5) The only question requiring consideration in this appeal is whether the sub tenant. Rashid, the. appellant in S. A. 0. 39 of 196) is entitled to any protection against the decree of eviction passed against tenant, Noor Hasan. The relevant provisions on the subject are contained in Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act u/s 16(1), where at any tinae before time he 9th June, 1952, the tenant had sub-Let the premises and the sub-tenant is in occupation thereof at the commencement of the Act, then notwithstanding that the consent of the landlord has not been obtained for the subletting, the premises are deemed to have been lawfully sublet. Rashid claims that the premises had been stable before 9th June, 1952 and he is a lawful sub-ten int in accordance with the said provisions in the Act. This contention, although challenged by the landlord, was accepted by the Controller as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal. Under sect on 17(2) of the Act where any premises have been lawfully sublet before the commencement of the Act, the tenant or the sub-tenant can give notice to the lan lord of the creation of the sub-tenancy within six months of the commencement of Act u/s 18 of the Act, where an order for eviction in respect of the premises is made against a tenant but not against .a sub-tenant ani a notice of the sub-ten ancy had been given to the landlord, the sub-tenant with effect :from the date of the order, is deemed to become a tenant hailing directly under the landlord in respect of the premises in his occupation

(6) The learned counsel for Ved Parkash, the landlord, urged that the Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have just remarked that the sub-tenancy was is created before 9th June, 1952, without any evidence to support it .He referred to the rent receipts filed by him ani the statement made by the landlord to show that the tenancy in favor of No or Hasan was created somewhere in July, 1952. There was Therefore, no occasion, urged the learned counsel, to hold that the sub-tenancy was created before June, 1952 The learned counsel for Rashid, was unable to point out any evidence, to show that he was in possession as sub-tenant before June, 1952. The findings of the controller and of the Tribunal in this respect appear to be not supported by any evidence on record

(7) But the question whether the tenancy was a lawful one or not, has no relevance as it is admitted that notice required u/s 17 of the Act was never given. Rashid, therefore. never :became a direct tenant under Ved Parkash, the landlord, u/s 18. It was Therefore, not necessary for Ved pa kash to implead as a party in his eviction that sub-tenant could nave moved the Controller For being imp leaded, if he had anything to urge before him. But that does not mean that the landlord was obliged to implied the sub-tenant.

(8) The stress laid by the Controller on the supposed collusion between the landlord and the tenant is also without any justification. The tenant always has a right to surrender the lease whenever he likes, lf, therefore the present case, the tenant made a statement accepting the claim of parkash landlord, it cannot said that the decree for eviction is obtained by collusion. The sub-tenant who hold under the tenant and has not acquired a ny rights u/s 18 of the Act to become a direst tenant under the landlord, derives his title under the tenant and has no independent rights. He would stand or fall with the tenant. If the tenancy comes to an end, for what ever reason, the sub-tenant will have no right to continue in possession This legal position has been recognised and accepted u/s 25 of the Act; which provides that where the interest of any tenant in any, premises is determined for any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the Controller under the Act for the recovery of possession of such premises, the order shall, subject to the provisions of section 18, be binding on all persons, who may be in occupation of the premises and possession is required to be given to the landlord by evicting such persons there from. Such being the case Rashid has no right to resist eviction. His appeal, S.A.O. 39 of 1969 accordingly, is dismissed. The appeal of'' Ved parkash, the landlord, S.A.O 3U of 1969 is decided accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.