MANPHUL SINGH SHARMA versus SMT. AHMEDI BEGUM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER ALLEGED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE/SUCCESSORS (A) SH. M. A. KHAN (B) DELHI WAKF BOARD

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 09-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MANPHUL SINGH SHARMA 
v. 
SMT. AHMED! BEGUM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER 
ALLEGED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE/SUCCESSORS 
(A) SH. M.A. KHAN (B) DELHI WAKF BOARD 
AUGUST 9, 1994 
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. MOHAN, JJ.) 
Rent Control Laws : 
Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952/Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : 
s. 20/Ss. 17, 18-1952 Act repealed by 1958 Act--On date of decree new Act 
came illto being-Tenant-Whether entitled to protection under S.20 of the 
1952 Act-Held : Yes, Notice under Section 17 of the 1958 Act not served--
Benefit under Section 18 cannot be claimed. 
One 'A' was the owner of a Lodge and she had leased out the entire 
property to 'S', for a period of five years and by a subsequent deed for 
another five years. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Both the deeds empowered the lessee to sub~let the whole or part of E 
the property, and he sublet various portions of the property, one such 
subletting was In favour of the appellant and another portion In favour of 
'\", 
Thereafter 'S' sub-let the entire property in favour of 'SK', and all 
the tenants started paying renis to him. The head tenant S failed to pay F 
rent and the tenancy came to be terminated. W ftled a suit against 'S' for 
recovery of arrears of rent and ejectmenL The suit was decreed In favour 
of 'A'. The execution proceedings stood transferred to High CourL 'SK' 
filed objections to the effect that he was a lawful sub-tenant and became a 
direct tenant under the decree bolder by virtue of S.20 of the Delhi & A,Jmer G 
Rent Control Act, 1952. His claim was negatived by the Single Judge as 
well as the Division Bench of the Hig!I CourL 
The appellant and '\" filed similar objections that the sub-letting in 
their favour was with the cons'ent of the landlady and S20 of the 1952 Act 
would enure to their benefit. "The objections were dismissed by the Single H 
495 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A Judge. Theipreferred appeals. During the pendency of the appeal, 'A' died. 
B 
c 
D 
One tenant, M.A. Khan Claimed that A bad created a wakf and he was the 
Mutawalli. 
The Delhi Wakf Board instituted a suit for declaration that M.A. 
Khan had nothing to do with the property and that the property vested in 
the Board as wakf. The Appellate Bench held that there was no lawful 
surrender in favour of 'SK'. However, the appeals came to be dismissed 
on the only ground that under S.17 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, 
the. appellant had not served notice on the owner and so the protection as 
statutory tenant was unavailable to him. Hence this appeal. 
While the appellant contended that the rights of the parties were 
governed by the 1952 Act, the respondents submitted that if on the date of 
the decree, namely, 31st August, 1959, the 1952 Act stood repealed, the 
provisions of the 1958 Act only would apply. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. After the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 
1958 on 9th February, 1959, the tenant was prohibited to sub-let the 
premises. However, if there had been written consent of the landlord, they 
would become lawful sub· tenants. In view of Section 17 of the said Act a 
E notice ought to have been served on the landlord regarding the creation of 
sub· tenancy. Only by reason of such notice the benefit of Section 18(1) of 
the said Act could be claimed. In the absence of notice the High Court is 
right in its conclusion. [499-F] 
F 
2.1. When a repeal is accompanied by a fresh legislation on the same 
subject the provisions of the new Act will have to be looked into to 
determine whether and how far the new Act protects or keeps alive the old 
rights and liabilities. [500·F·G] 
2.2. In view of the factual finding rendered by the High Court that 
G the appellant is a lawful sub-tenant he would be entitled to the protection 
of Section 20 of the 1952 Act. Consequently, Sections 17 and 18 of the 1958 
Act will have no application whatsoever. The appellant being a lawful 
sub-tenant had become a statutory tenant. [503·C] 
State ~f Punjab v. Mohar Singh Pratap Singh, AIR (1955) SC 84 and 
H Karam Singh Sobti v. Sri Pratap <:hand, AIR (1964) SC 1305, relied on. 
M.S. SHARMA v. AHMED! BEGUM [MOHAN, J.) 
497 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONS: Civil Appeal No. 1959 of A 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.81 of the Delhi High Court 
in EFA (OS) No. 7 of 1971. 
B.B. Sawhney for the Appellant. 
M .. C. Dhingra for the Respondent. 
N.A. Siddiqui for the Delhi Wakf Board. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.