GIRDHARI LAL & SONS versus BALBIR NATH MATHUR & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383 · Decided: 26-02-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
... ~ 
.... 
383 
GIRDllARI LAL & SONS 
v. 
BALBIR NA1'B llA1'llllR & ORS •. 
FEBRUARY 26, 1986 
ro. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND v. KHALID, JJ,] 
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT 1958: 
Sections 17 & 18 - 'Sub-tenant' when entitled to protec-
tion against eviction - Consent of landlord to the sub-tenancy 
and notice of creation of sub-tenancy to be evidenced in 
writing-letter of sub-tenancy - Attested by landlord - Whether 
sufficient. 
INTERPRETATION QF STATUTES : · 
Statute -
Interpretation of -
Primary duty of court -
Ascertain intention of legislature -
Actual or - imputed -
Thereafter interpret statute so as to prom::>te and advance its 
object and purpose by supplementing the written word if 
necessary. 
The respondent-landlord, Balbir Nath Mathur had let out 
the demised premises to a firm M/s. Om Prakash & Co., whose 
three partners were close relations of the respondent-land-
lord. The tenant-firm in turn leased out the premises to the 
appellant-firm. A letter executed by the tenant-firm and 
attested by the respondent land-lord was passed on to the · 
y 
appellant-firm had confirmed the lease and further undertook 
to pay to the appellant-firm as damages a sum calculated at 
the rate of Rs.2,500 per month for the unexpired period of the 
.lease if the appellant-firm had to vacate the premises before 
the expiry of the lease period of two years. Simultaneously, 
the appellant-firm also executed a letter addressed to the 
respondent-landlord, in which, after referring to the lease of 
the premises in their favour, it was stated that they would 
pay a sum of Rs.8,400 per annum aa donation to the trust of 
•. 1'.__ which respondent-landlord and others were trustees, . if they 
i19· stayed on in the premises after the expiry of the period of 
lease. By a letter dated June 10, 1975 the tenant-firm had 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
384 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 1 s.c.R. 
demaruled payment of arrears of rent from appellant-£ irm. This 
;,.. 
letter was signed by the respondent-landlord 
himself 
on 
behalf of the tenant-firm. 
The respondent-landlord obtained an !!!. parte decree for 
eviction against the tenant-firm and one of its partners. In 
the execution proceedings, the appellant-firm, in whose occu-
pation the premises were, filed an objection petition before 
the Rent Controller under s.25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 
1958. The objection petition was rejected by the Rent Control-
i'. '<" 
ler and his order was confimed by the Rent Control Tribunal 
as well as by the High. Court. 
In appeal to this Court it 11as contended on behalf of 
the appellant-firm/sub-tenant : (1) that they were not sub-
tenants but the direct tenants of respondent-landlord as he 
himself and negotiated the lease and inducted them into 
possession; (ii) that even if they were sub-tenants only, they 
were entitled to the protection of sections 17 and 18 of the 
~­
Act; (iii) that the decree obtained by the respondent-landlord 
was a collusive decree and that a fraud had been played upon 
• 
the Court to get rid of the appellant-firm and (iv) that there 
was consent in writing by the landlord to ~he sub-tenancy, as 
well as notice in writing to the landlord of the sub-tenancy 
within the meaning of sections 17 and 18 of the Act and, 
therefore, 
they were 
entitled to be protected against 
eviction. 
Allowing the appeal, 
BBLll : 
(By the Court) 
The appellant/sub-tenant is clearly entitled to the 
~ 
protection of s. 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 
and he cannot, therefore, be evicted in execution of the 
decree obtained by respondent-landlord against tenant-respon-
dent. (396 F] 
(Per Qlhmappa lleddy, .J.) 
1. The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is primarily devised 
to prevent unreasonable eviction of the tenants and sub- .,,/; • 
tenants from demised premises and unreasonable enhancement of 
' -· 
GIRDHARI LAL v. B.N. MATHUR 
385 
rent. Showing an awareness of 
the problems of sub-tenants, 
the Legislature enacted ss. 17 and 18 for their protection. 
[395 C-D; E-F] 
2. The Legislature while offering protection to a 
sub-tenant who has been inducted into possession by a landlord 
has limited the protection to the sub-tenant who can establish 
the consent of the landlord by documentary evidence to which 
the landlord and the tenant or the sub-tenant are parties. So 
it is provided that the previous consent of the landlord has 
to be in writing and that a notice in the prescribed manner 
has to be given to th

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