MRS. KAPIL BHARGAVA AND ORS. versus SUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 12 · Decided: 21-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MRS. KAP IL BHARGA VA AND ORS. 
v. 
SUBHASH CHAND AGGARWAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 21, 2001 
[A.P. MISRA AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 : 
Sections 2(1), 14(1) (b) and (d), 16(1), 17(2) and 18-Tenant-lnduction 
of sub-tenant without the consent of landlord-Notice under Section l 7(2), not 
served-Eviction decree against tenant-Sub-tenant's claim for protection-
Entitlement of-Held, when a tenant inducts a sub-tenant without the consent 
D of the landlord, no protection from eviction could be claimed by such sub-
tenant. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Sections 17(2) and 18-Sub-tenant-lnduction of-obligation to sen1e 
notice on landlord-Necessity of-Held, is not mere procedural but confers a 
substantive right on the sub-tenant against eviction under Section 18. 
Sub-tenant-Payment of rent by-Presumption of-Held, in the absence 
of any specific evidence that the rent was paid by sub-tenant on his own 
behalf. such payment would be treated as payment on behalf of the tenant. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Tenant"-Meaning of in the context of Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act, 1958. 
"Lawfally sub-let"-Connotation of in the context of Section 17 (2) of the 
Delhi Rent control Act, 1958. 
Respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1 )(b ), 
(d) and (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the tenant and the 
sub-tenant for bonafide requirement. Appellants were the legal representatives 
of the sub-tenant. The sub-tenant had been inducted into the premises since 
before 9.6.1952 without the written permission of the landlord and no notice 
12 
KAPIL BHARGAVA v. S.C. AGGARWAL 
13 
as contel)lplated under Section 17(2) of the Act was served on the landlord. A 
• 
The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition holding that since the 
original landlady died during the pendency of eviction petition, the question 
of bonafide need under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act did not survive; that since 
the sub-tenant was in possession of the premises in question since before 
9.6.1952, he would be deemed to be sub-tenant under Section 16(1) of the Act B 
and, therefore, the case do not fall under Section 14 (1) (b). Landlord 
unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. On second 
appeal, High Court allowed the eviction petition under Section 14(1) (d) 
holding that the tenant was not residing in the premises for a period of six 
months immediately before the date of filing of the eviction petition. 
Aggrieved, legal representatives of the sub-tenant have filed the present C 
appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that Section 2(1) of the 
Act defining "tenant" includes a sub-tenant and hence possession of the 
premises by sub-tenant lawfully inducted under Section 16(1) of the Act 
amounts to possession of the premises by tenant and hence he could not be D 
evicted under Section 14(1) (d) of the Act; that since the sub-tenancy was 
created before 9.6.1952 and the appellant became a deemed tenant i.e. a lawful 
sub-tenant by virtue of Section 16(1) of the Act, notice under Section 17(2) 
would become a mere formality and question of eviction under Section 14(1) 
(d) would not arise; that since the landlord was accepting the rent from the E 
sub-tenant, compliance of section 17(2) of th.e Act would at best be said to be 
a mere formality. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. When a tenant inducts a sub-tenant without written consent F 
ofa landlord, he makes himself liable for eviction under Section 14(1) (b) and 
no protection to such sub-tenant would arise for his eviction in case of a decree 
against a tenant. It is true that a sub-tenant is included within the definition 
of tenant, but it is for the purpose of conferment of rights and obligations on 
such sub-tenant wherever statute requires under various provisions of an Act, 
of that which is conferred on a tenant. But this would have no application G 
where statute itself treats both as two separate entities as is incorporated in 
Sections 14(1) (b), 16, 17 and 18 of the Act. 116-G-H] 
2. A conjoint reading of Sections 16, 17 and 18 makes it clear that a 
sub-tenant falling under Section 16(1) is deemed to be a lawful sub-tenant 
even without written consent of the landlord. But section 17(2) casts an H 
14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A obligation on such sub-tenant to give notice to the landlord under sub-section 
(2) within six months ofthe commence

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