LexM/S COX AND KINGS LTD. AND ANR. versus SMT. CHANDER MALHOTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,
-
MIS COX AND KINGS LTD. AND ANR.
A
v.
SMT. CHANDER MALHOTRA
DECEMBER 12, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY, S.B. MAJMUDAR AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
B
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Section 14(l)(b).
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: Sections 28, 29 & 47.
c
Companies Act, 1956:
Rent Control-Sub-letting-Involuntary transfer of leasehold
rights-Whether constitutes sub-letting-Premises demised to a foreign com-
pany-Permission to carry on business not granted to foreign company under
provisions of FERA-Thereafter Indian Company came to be incor-
D
porate~Agreement between foreign company and Indian Companr-Assign-
ment of all rights and liabilities in favour of Indian Companr-Assignment
of leasehold interest in the demised premises to Indian Company-fndian
Company carrying on business in the tenanted premises-Eviction petition
filed by landlorq on the ground of sub-letting-Eviction ordered by Rent E
Controlle~rd/?r confirmed in first and second appeal-Appeal before
Supreme Court-Held, under FERA, there is no compulsion that the premises
demised to the foreign Company should be continued or given to Indian
Companr-Written consent of landlord is a pre-condition, as envisaged under
sub-section (l)(b) of Section 14 which was not obtaine~There was a clear
assignment between the Foreign Company and the Indian Company of the F
demised premises without any written consent of the respondent-
landlor~The respon~ent-landlord is not bound by such assignment, induc-
tion of the appellant-Company against her wishes-It is a case of "sub-letting"
within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act-The courts below, there-
fore, have not committed any illegality-No interference is wa"anted.
G
P.H. Rao v. S.P.N.K Jain & Anr., [1980] 3 SCR 444; Venkatarama Iyer
v. Renters Ltd., (1951) II MW 57 and General Radio &Appliances Co. Ltd..
v. MA. Khader (dead) by Lrs., [1986] 2 SCR 607, relied on.
Madras Bangalore Transport Co. (West) v. Inder Singh & Ors., [1986] H
1
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1996) SUPP. 10 S.C.R.
A 3 sec 62, distinguished.
Krishna Das Nandy v. Bidhan Chandra Roy, AIR (1959) Cal. 181,
cited.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2702 of
B 1989.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.88 of the Delhi High Court
in S.A.0. No. 360 of 1985.
R.F. Nariman, Kiran Bhardwaj and Vineet Kumar for the Appel-
C lants.
P.P. Rao and R.P. Sharma for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Delhi
High Court dated July 17, 1983 dismissing the Second Appeal No. 630/85
confirming the decree of eviction passed against the appellants under
{
Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
E
The admitted facts are that the premises in question was demised to
Cox & Kings (AGENTS) Limited, a company incorporated under the
United Kingdom Companies Act [for short, "Foreign Company"], tenant of
Smt. Jagdish Rani Sethi who subsequently sold the property to Smt.
Chander Malhotra by a registered conveyance. Mrs. Rani Sethi had filed
eviction petition on diverse grounds. Smt. Chander Malhotra, the respon-
F
dent, after getting impleaded, amended the petition and also pleaded
sub-letting to the appellant, an Indian Company. The Rent Controller
found that premises had been sub-let by the Foreign Company and, there-
fore, ordered eviction. That was confirmed in appeal. As stated earlier, the
second appeal was also dismissed. The principle question that arises for
G consideration, on reference to this Bench, is : whether involuntary transfer
of the leasehold interest from Foreign Company to the Indian Company is
not sub-letting within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act? The said
section reads as under :
" ... that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let,
H
assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or
"°"'·
--
COX AND KINGS LTD. v. C. MALH01RA
3
any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing A
of the landlord".
B
The contention of Shri R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, is that after the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for
short the "FERA"] had come into force, by operation of Section 29 of the
Act, the Foreign Company was required to obtain, to carry on the business,
written permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, it had
applied for permission but the Reserve Bank had refused permission to
contExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.