BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED versus BEHARI LAL KOHLI

Citation: [1989] 3 S.C.R. 730 · Decided: 08-08-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED 
v. 
BEHAR! LAL KOHLI 
AUGUST 8, 1989 
B 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
c 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14( 1) Proviso (b)-
y-•"
Eviction of tenant on ground of sub-letting-Whether lessee entitled to 
create sub-lease-Lease deed. inadmissible for non-registration-Term 
of the lease deed regarding sub-lease-Whether could be relied upon. 
The respondent let out bis premises to tbe appellant by way of ~ 
unregistered lease deed wbicb inter alia stated that without the permis-
sion of the landlord the premises should not be sub-let except to 
._,\ -
associate concerns, and the lessee was liable for payment of rent. Alleg· 
ing that the appellant, a manufacturing company of automobiles, had 
D sub-let the premises to M/s United Automobiles without bis consent, the 
respondent Initiated eviction proceedings. 
The appellant contended that M/s United Automobiles, being the 
authorised dealer and distributor of the prod11cts manufactured by it, 
has been in occupation of the premises in that capacity and cannot 
·>u 
E therefore be described as a sub-tenant, Alternatively, in view of the 'r ~ 
specific term in. the lease deed, the arrangement with the associate 
concern was not a sub-lease without the consent of the respondent, it 
was contended. The respondent took the stand that the term cannot be 
looked into, as the document was not registered and that M/s United 
Automobiles cannot be assumed to be an 'associate concern' within the 
F 
meaning of the term. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate 
I 
authority held that the term of the lease was not inadmissible, but .f 
ordered eviction on the ground that M/s United Automobiles was 
inducted in the premises as a sub-lessee. 
The appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court which 
G 
dismissed it in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
H 
Dismissing tbe appeal, 
HELD: I. The appellant bas created a sub-lease in favour of its 
dealer, and has thus parted with the pll sr 'Ion within the !M!lning of s. 
14(1) Proviso (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant.Com· 
730 
~-
BAJAJ AUTO LTD. '· 8.L. KOHLI 
731 
pany bas a separate legal ent;iy and has nOtlfing to do with M/s United 
A 
Automohiles except that the latter is the dealer-dilotiibat<>r of some of its 
manufaeturecl articles. M/s United Automobiles is not a lli!efioee and is 
not in possession of the premises on behalf of the appellant. The mone-
tary benefit available to the dealer is confined to the commission it 
receives on the sale of every vehicle; and does not include .the right of 
enjoyment of the premises. The dealer pays a fixed sum as rent to the 
--
appellant and the rent is not related or dependant on the sale of any 
vehicle. The fact that this amount is same as what is paid by the appel-
lant to the respondent does not appear to be material. [733E-G] 
2. The question whether a lessee is entitled to create a sub-lease 
or not is undoubtedly a term of the transaction of lease, and if it is 
incorporated in the document it cannot be disassociated from the lease 
and considered separately in isolation. If a document is inadmissible for 
non-registration, all its terms are inadmissible including the one dealing 
with landlord's permission to his tenant to sub-let. The appellant can-
not, in the present circumstances, be allowed to rely upon the clause in 
the unregistered lease deed. [734C-D] 
Sachindra Mohan Ghose v. Ramjash Agarwal/a, A.I.R. 1932 
Patna 97; referred to. 
B 
c 
D 
3. In the instant case, a perusal of the clause relied on by the 
appellant would show that it contains the respondent's consent in 
E 
general terms without reference to M/s United Automobiles. As a mat-
ter of fact M/s United Automobiles came to be inducted as a sub-tenant 
much later. Such a general permission cannot be treated to be the 
consent as required bys. 14(1) Proviso (b) of the Act. Since consent of 
the respondent was not obtained specifically with reference to the 
sub-letting in favour of M/s United Automobiles, the clause in the 
F 
lease deed cannot save the appeUant, even if it 'tie assumed in its 
favour that the cl~use is admissible and the sub-lessee is appellant's 
associate concern. [734E-G] 
Mis Shalimar Tar Products v. S.C. Sharma, [1988] I SCC 70; 
relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2443 
of 1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.80 of the Delhi High 
Court in S.A.0. No. 339 of 1980. 
H 
732 
SUPREME CO

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.