DULI CHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus JAGMENDER DASS

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 08-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DULI CHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
v. 
JAGMENDER DASS 
DECEMBER 8, 1989 
[L.M. SHARMA AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 14( 1)(b)-"Consent in 
Writing''-Jnterprecation of-Sub-letting-Written consent-Necessity 
for-Mere Permission or acquiescence would not do. 
A 
B 
The Respondent-landlord filed a petition under section 14(I)(b) C 
of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 for an order of eviction of the 
appellant tenant from a shop situate at G.T. Road, Delhi on the ground 
that the tenant Duli Chand had sub-let or parted with the possession of 
the said shop after the 9th of June 1952 to M/s Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan 
illegally and without the written consent.of respondent landlord. The 
contention of the appellant-tenant was that be had not sub-let or D 
parted with the possession of the shop in question. According to him 
Hiralal was his relative who died sometime prior to 1958 and that 
. Sri Bhagwan was his son and the name oftbe business as M/s Hiralal Sri 
Bhagwan & Company was given in memory of the deceased Hira Lal. In 
reply, the Landlord-respondent had contended that it was true that Sri 
Bhagwan was the natural son of Duli Chand hut since be bad given him E 
in adoption to Hiralal, he had gone out of the family of the appellant 
and as such it was a clear case of sub-letting and parting with the 
possession of tne rented premises. 
The Rent, Controller, held that the land-lord had failed to prove 
parting with possession of the tenanted shop. On appeal by the land-
p 
lord, the Rent Control Tribunal held that the tenant had parted with 
the legal possession of the premises and in that view ordered the eviction 
of the appellant-tenant under section 14(l)(b) of the Act. Thereupon the 
appellant-tenant preferred second appeal before the High Court. The 
High Court having affirmed the imding of the Tribunal that the 
appellant-tenant had parted with the possession of the premises in dis-
G 
pute, dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal by the tenant. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: Secticn 14(l)(b) requires a "Consent in Writing" of the 
landlord in order to avoid an eviction on the ground of sub-letting, 
H 
465 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
assigning or otherwise parting with the possession of the whole or any 
A 
part of the premises. l472BJ 
Mere permission or acqniescence will not do. The romeo! shall also 
he to the specific sub-letting or parting with possession. The require-
ment of consent to he in writing was to serve a public purpose i.e., to 
B 
avoid dispute as to whether there was consent or not. [473Cj 
c 
If the words were "without consent of the landlord" it might 
mean without consent, express or implied and in that sense question of 
waiver may arise. The question of implied consent will not arise, if the 
consent is to he in writing. [473E] 
In the instant case, though there is some evidence to show that the 
sign hoard M/s Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan was seen in the premises since 
1972 and the landlord had seen Shri Bhagwan sitting in the shop since 
the year 1968, there is no positive evidence to show when the landlord 
had come to know of Sri Bhagwan getting the exclusive possession and 
D 
doing business in the premises. [471G] 
Jagan Nath (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Chander Bhan & Ors., 
[1988] 3 SCC 57; Lakshman Singh Kothari v. Smt: Rup Kanwar, [1962] 
I SCR 477; Bai Hira Devi & Ors. v. The Official Assignee of Bo'mbay, 
[1958] 1 SCR 1384; Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi v. S.B. 
E 
Sardar Ranjit Singh, [1968] 2 SCR 548 and M/s Shalimar Tar Products 
Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma & Ors., [1988] l SCC 70, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1810 
of 1982. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.1982 of th~ Delhi High 
Court in S.A.O. No. 204 of 1980. 
Ram Panjwani and Vi jay Panjwani for the Appellant. 
Avadh Behari Rohtagi and P.N. Gupta forthe,Respondent. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V. RAMASWAMI, J. The tenant is the appellant. The respon-
dent-landlord filed a petition under section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an order of 
H 
eviction of the appellant-tenant for a shop bearing No. 361 (Old No. 
DULi CHAND v. JAGMENDER IV. RAMASWAMI, J.] 
467 
25-A) Azadpur, G.T. Road, Delhi, on the ground that the tenant-Duli 
Chand has sub-let or parted with the possession of the said shop after 
9th day of June, 1952 to Mis Hira Lal Sri Bhagwan illegal

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