LexASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LTD., DELHI versus S. B. SARDAR RANJIT SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
5~8
ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LTD., DELIH
l'.
S. n. SARDAI{ RANJIT SINGH
December .7. 1967
[R. S. BACIL\WAT AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J
Delhi and Aj111C'r Rent Conlrol Act (38 of 1952), s.
13( I)
proviso
(Ii). ((·) and (/.:. )-//011:! pre1nise.\·-CunHituents of suh-leflinR-Know·
fed<;.te of suh-/etting, if H'Clivcr.
The n;,pondcnt-JanJlord of a hotel tiled a suit for
cvic'.ion
of
his
tcn.rnt-;ippcl!ant under <. 13( I) provi<o (bl and (c) of the Delhi and
Aimer Rent c·ontrol Act. I 95:! on the allegation that the appellant had
i;ub-lct sc\ era I roomc;.
·rhcsc occupant'i \Vere doing husincss, which were
not conlincd t1J the rcsi<lcnls of the hotel.
The occupant-; \Vere given ex-
clusive pos-;c~sion of the rooms occupied by the-rn. 'fhc appcllan1 did not
retain anv control
;incl don1inion
over
thcS(!
rooms.
It
v.·as
not
a cond1til)n of' rh-:.: grants that the keys v,:ould be left
at
tht!
reception
counter. 0r that the key~ would be retained hy the appellant. The occu-
pant<> \\Crc ;it Jihcrty to take a\\·ay th·~ keys if they liked. The occupants
<l\-;ulcd th·.;mscl\'C') of the scrvicc-s of the hotel sweeper for their own con-
Ycniencc. ·rh: ;ippellant retained control of the corr!dor, hut the entrance
to the corridor \\';1<> open day and night.
l'he occupants p.:iid monthly
~unl'i h1 thr ;1ppdlant as the considcra1ion of the suh-lcases.
The appcllant-
tcn:int d~nied the :lilcgations and ple.'.1.dcd tha· the re-;pondcnt-landlord had
\\'aivcd lhc hrcaches. if any. The suit \\':ts decreed which the High Court,
in appc;1I maintained
HELD : The landlord "'"' entitled to the decree for cvic!ion. [558 BJ
On the question \\'hethcr the occupier of a separate apartment in a
prcn1iv.'c:
i<> a licensee or a tenant, the test is has the Jan<llord retained
c0ntrol o\.·cr the apartment
Normally, an occupier of an apartment in
a hotel is in the position of licensee as the hotel-keeper retains the general
control of 1he hotel including the apartment.
But it is not a necessary
inference of law that the occupier of an apartment in· a hotel is not a
tenant.
A hotzl-kecpcr may run a first class hotel without sub-letting any
part of it.
Where as in this case. the hotel-keeper retained no control over
the apartment. the occupier v.·as in the position of a tenant.
The onus to
prove sub-Jetting ,.._·as on the respondent.
The respondent discharged the
onus by lcad!ng evicknce shov.·ing that the occupant.;; '"1crc in eXclusivc
posc;cssion of the apartments for valuable considera.:ion.
The
appellant
choo;c not to rebut this pritna facie evidence by proving and exhibiting the
rclev;mt agreements. [553 D; 554 C-D. F-H; 555 C; 556 E]
l;nuer s. :!(g) "rrcmiscs" docs not include "a room in a hotel or lod-
ging hou<"..{!".
The sub-lesc:ce of a roon1 in a hotel is, 1herefore. not a tenant
nnJ cannot cl;1im protection under s. 13 from eviction. nor can he ask
for ftxa1ion of standard rent.
BU:., becau')C' a room in a hotel is not pre-
mises, it docs not follov.• that the room i'i not a part of the hotel premises
or that a suh-lcttinl! of 1he room is nor a contr;!.\Tn·ion of els. (h) and (c)
of lhc provi"o to~. 1'.l(l :. [555 F-Ci: 556 Al
A.\wicfr.tccl lfot<'ls o.f /1uli<? l.td. \'. R. 1\
0
• Ka_noor, [!960) 1 S.C.R. 168,
follo\\·ed.
Addis1on1he <;ord<'n £_H{/f('J I.rd. J· Anr. v. Grnbhc and Or~·. [1958] 1
QR. :'1.3 and f{C'f11u111 v. //orshan1 As.w·s~1nent Con1111ir1ec, [1949J 2 K.B.
33:', referred to.
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
ASSOCIATED HOTELS v. RANJIT SINGH (Bachawat, J.)
549
A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right.
There
can be no waiver unless the person against whom the waiver is claimed
had full knowledge of his rights and of facts enabling him to take effectual
action for the enforcement of such rights.
Assuming thai the landlord
can waive the requirement as to consent, it was not shown that the respon-
dent waived it.
It is said that the respondent knew of the sub-1-ettings as
he frequently visited the ho:el up to 1953 and he must have. known of the
occupation of some of the occupants.
But he came to know of the other
lettings i~ 1958 only.
Moreover, the. precise nature of the grant \Vas never
commumcated to the respondent. [557 B-D]
Dhanukdhari Singh v. Nathima Sahu, [1907] 11 C.W.N. 852, referred
to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1249 of
<:
1967.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 21, 1967 of
the DelhExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.