Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 699 (MP)

Hem Chand v. Hari Kishan Rohtagi

2001-09-25

S.N.PHUKAN, S.S.M.QUADRI

body2001
JUDGMENT The dissatisfied landlord is in appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Second Appeals Nos. 112-13 of 1979 dated 23.2.1996. The appellants filed Suit No. E-384 of 1970 in the Court of Shri M.A. Khan, VIth Additional Rent Controller, Delhi seeking eviction of respondent 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 5 was inducted as sub-tenant without the written consent of the appellants and therefore respondents 1 to 4 who are the tenants should be evicted from the said premises. The respondents took the plea that the consent was obtained to sub-let the premises. 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 premises and therefore the Courts ought to have ordered eviction of respondents 1 to 4 instead of confining the order of eviction to respondent 5, one sub-tenant only. It appears from the pleading that in the eviction petition the landlord stated that out of 8 sub-tenants, six sub-tenants were inducted in possession 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 in possession of a portion of tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord. So far as respondents 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 'f 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 interference. The appeals are therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.