M/S BHARAT SALES LTD. versus LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 05-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS BHARAT SALES LTD. 
A 
v. 
·y 
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA 
FEBRUARY 5, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction. 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(J)(b). 
Subleting-Coming into existence of-Proof-Tanant parted with c 
actual, physical and exclusive possession to a third person behind the back 
of the landlord-Held: Such parting with possession indicates subleting 
which is a ground for eviction-Proof of payment of rent or monetary 
consideration by the sub-tenant to the tenant not necessary to prove 
subletting. 
D 
The respondent-landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the 
ground of subletting. The Additional Rent Controller allowed this petition as 
it was established that the petitioner had sublet the premises in question. 
The Rent Control Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The E 
High Court remanded the case to the Tribunal for re-hearing the appeal. The 
Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and upheld the finding 
recorded by the Additional Rent Controller. The High Court dismissed the 
Second Appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence this Special Leave Petition. 
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that unless payment of F 
-
consideration was established as a fact between the tanant and the sub-
-"' 
tenant, the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act could not be 
1 
allowed 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. Sub-tenancy or subletting comes into existence when the G 
tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, 
and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement 
comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between 
the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this 
process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted 
behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring H 
711 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] l S.C.R. 
A possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, 
in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor 
had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the· dismissed 
property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive 11ossession of that person, 
instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals of the landlord that the tenant 
to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession 
B of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to 
11rove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between 
the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to 
prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been 
sublet had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, 
C undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease. It may be paid in 
case or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have 
been paid in lump sum in advance covering the period for which the premises 
is let out or sublet or it may have been paid or promi~ed to be paid periodically. 
Since payment of rent at monetary consideration may have been made secretly, 
the law does not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence 
D and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the 
case proved at the trial, including the delivery of exclusive possession to 
infer that the premises were sublet. [713-F-H; 714-A-C] 
Rajbir Kaur'v. S Chokesiri & Co., [1989] 1 SCC 19 and United Bank 
E of India v. Cooks and Kelvey Properties, (P) Ltd., [1994] 5 SCC 9, relied 
on. 
,. 
Delhi Stationers & Printing v. Rajendra Kumar, [1990] 2 SCC 331; 
Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 57; Smt. Krishanvati v. 
Hans Raj, [1974] 1 SCC 298 and Gopal Saran v. Satyanarayana, (1989] 3 
F sec 56, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 
1412of1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.12.97 of the Delhi High Court in 
G S.A.0. No. 48of1997. 
M.L. Verma, Naresh Thanai and Rajeev Sharma for the Petitioner. 
The Judgment·of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Indefatigable stamina to litigate has been 
H exhibited by the parties in this case in which proceedings started on 5.2.1965 
' -
y 
BHARAT 

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