Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 650 (DEL)

CHANDERWATI v. GIANWATI

2004-08-19

R.S.SODHI

body2004
R. S. SODHI, J. ( 1 ) S. A. O. 20 of 2002 is directed against the judgment and order dated 1. 4. 2002 of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (for short tribunal ) in RCO No. 488/95, which appeal arose out of the order of the Rent Controller dated 18. 5. 1995, holding that the respondents 2 to 4 therein (appellants herein) are direct tenants of the respondents (appellants before the tribunal ). The Tribunal reversed the order of the Rent Controller holding that the sub-tenants who had not given notice under Section 17 (2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act ) were not entitled to be treated as direct tenants of the landlord. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal, are - "that respondent No. 1, Ranpat Singh (since deceased) was a tenant of the appellants in property No. 1a, Underhill Road, Delhi. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were the sub-tenants in the said property. Appellant had earlier preferred an eviction petition against the respondent No. 1 u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Prior to the filing of the said petition appellant had served a notice of demand and termination of tenancy dated 28. 6. 1968. The said petition came up for hearing before Smt. Manju Goel, Ld. ARC, Delhi. Vide order dated 31. 1. 1979 Ex. A-8, respondent No. 1 was extended the benefit u/s 14 (2) of the DRC Act. By the said judgment respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were held to be lawful sub-tenants and consequently the petition u/s 14 (1) (b) which was also preferred along with petition u/s 14 (1) (a) was dismissed. The present petition, thereafter was preferred claiming that respondent No. 1 again fell in arrears of rent for the period 1. 1. 79 to 30. 11. 82 @ Rs. 65/- which the respondent no. 1 neither paid nor tendered within two months of the service of demand notice dated 26. 682. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were also impleaded as a party to avoid any complication at a later stage. It was claimed that all the respondents are liable to be evicted under a decree that may be passed in the eviction petition. Respondents contested the petition. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 claimed that after the termination of the contractual tenancy of respondent No. 1, respondent Nos. It was claimed that all the respondents are liable to be evicted under a decree that may be passed in the eviction petition. Respondents contested the petition. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 claimed that after the termination of the contractual tenancy of respondent No. 1, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 were inducted as sub-tenants prior to 1952, became direct tenants under the appellant on the same terms and conditions in respect of their respective portions which they had originally occupied as lawful sub-tenants. It was, therefore, pleaded by them that since they have become direct tenants under the appellant by operation of law, their eviction cannot be sought. Parties adduced the evidence and ultimately the court below passed the order of eviction against the respondent No. 1 but refused to pass an eviction order against the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 relying upon Section 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent control Act, 1952 and also the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in Manhul Singh Sharma vs. Smt. Ahmedi Begum and anr. 55 (1994) DLT 506 and Sec. 18 of the DRC Act, 1958. " ( 3 ) IT is submitted by counsel for the appellants that since the appellants were inducted as sub-tenants prior to 1952 and the landlord had knowledge thereof, they automatically became tenants of the landlord, in their own rights, on termination of the tenancy of the original tenant. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, it was contended by counsel for the respondents that the decision in Manphul Singh Sharma vs. Ahmedi Begum and anr. 55 (1994) DLT 506, is not applicable to the case in hand and that the provisions of Section 18 of the Act are mandatory. The appellants having not served a notice within six months of the promulgation of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, cannot claim to have acquired the status of a tenant. Counsel relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapil Bhargava and others vs. Subhash Chandra Aggarwal, 2001 (6) SCC 645 . ( 5 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment under challenge as also the judgment of the Supreme Court. It appears to me that the judgment of the Tribunal is a well reasoned judgment and derives support from judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapil Bhargava s case. ( 5 ) I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment under challenge as also the judgment of the Supreme Court. It appears to me that the judgment of the Tribunal is a well reasoned judgment and derives support from judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapil Bhargava s case. I also find that the Supreme Court in M/s Girdhari Lal and Sons vs. Balbir Nath Mathur and others, AIR 1986 SC 1499 also lays down the law to the effect that the notice under Section 17 (2) of the Act is mandatory. In the present case, admittedly, no notice under Section 17 (2) of the Act has been given by the appellants herein. They, therefore, cannot claim to be direct tenants of the respondents herein. The order of the Tribunal is upheld. S. A. O. 20 of 2002 is dismissed. No order as to costs.