0
HEM CHAND AND ORS.
A
v.
HARi KISHAN ROHTAGI AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.J
B
Rent and Eviction:
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 :
S.14( 1 )( b )-Petition for eviction of tenants and sub-tenants-On ground
of sub-letting without consent of landlord-Rent Controller, Tribunal and High
Court's.findings that induction of one of the sub-tenants was without consent
and ordering his eviction only-Other sub-tenants were inducted into possession
of different premises with consent-Landlord~· plea that since other sub-tenants
c
were occupying premises, eviction of tenants should also have been ordered-
D
Held, since other sub-tenants were inducted with consent of landlord, there can
be no legitimate complaint of sub-letting, and there.fore, neither the tenants nor
such other sub-tenants could have been ordered eviction merely because one of
the sub-tenants was inducted into possession of a portion of tenanted premises
without consent of landlord-Not a fit case to order eviction of tenants under
s.14(1 )(b).
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9116-17 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.96 of the Delhi High Court in
S.A.O. No. 112 and 113 of 1979.
Ashok Grover, N.M. Popli, Ms. Anupama Grover, Sanjeev Kumar and
Bharat Sangal for the Appellants.
E
F
S.K. Bagga, Rajinder Mathur and Seeraj Bagga for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The dissatisfied landlord is in appeal by special leave against the judgment
and order of the High Court of Delhi in Second Appeal Nos. 112-113/1979
dated February 23, 1996.
H
331
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2001) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
The appellants filed Suit No. E-384170 in the Court of Shri M.A. Khan.
VI Additional Rent Controller, Delhi seeking eviction of respondent nos. 1 to
5 on three grounds; however, the only ground which suvives is provided under
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(for short 'the Act'). The allegation of the appellants was that respondent no.
5 was inducted as sub-tenant without the written consent of the appellants and
therefore respondent nos. 1 to 4 who are the tenants should be evicted from
the said premises. The respondents took the plea that the consent was obtained
to sublet the premises.
The learned Rent Controller, the Rent Tribunal and the High Court found
C
that subletting in favour of the 5th respondent was without the consent of the
appellants and ordered his eviction, however, t~e grievance of the appellants
is that the other six sub-tenants are occupying various portions of the tenanted
premises and therefore the courts ought to have ordered eviction of respondent
nos. 1 to 4 instead of confining the order of eviction to respondent no. 5, one
D
E
F
sub-tenant only. It appears from the pleadings that in the eviction petition the
landlord stated that out of 8 sub-tenants, six sub-tenants were inducted into
possession of different portions with his consent. It that be so, neither the
tenants nor the sub-tenants could have been ordered to be evicted merely
because one of the sub-tenants was inducted into possession of a portion of
tenanted premises without the consent of the landlord. So far as respondent nos.
1 to 4 as well as the other sub-tenants are concerned there can be no legitimate
complaint of sub-letting because even according to the petition of the appellants
they were inducted as the sub-tenants wi:h his consent. This is not a fit case
to order eviction of respondents 1 to 4 under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. We
therefore find no illegality in the order of the High Court warranting our
foterference. The appeals are therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances of
the case, without costs.
R.P.
Appeals dismissed.
J
Lex