MUNSHI LAL versus SMT. SANTOSH & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 594 · Decided: 01-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
(20111 1 .s:c.R. 594 
MUNSHI LAL 
v. 
SMT. SANTOSH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1327 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 01, 2017 
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.) 
Delhi Rent ControlAct,1958- s. 14(1}(b) and 14(4) - On the 
ground ofsub-letting of tenanted premises -Alleging that the tenant 
had sub-let the tenanted shop to his son-in-law _: Rent-Contfoller 
held that the son-in-law had been put in exclusive possession of the 
tenanted shop in pursuance of a shain partnership deed and hence 
liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting -Appellate Authority 
held that since the alleged sub-tenant was a close relative i.e. son-
in-law of the tenant, there was no parting of possession and hence 
no sub-letting - High Court upheld the view of the appellate 
authority -: On appeal, held: In view of clause (b)of the prov!so to 
s.14(1), before a tenant can sub-let, assign or part with the 
. possession of anypart of the premises or the whole, it must be 
preceded by the consent in writing from t.he landlord - The 
requirement of obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord is 
retained as a pre-requisite even for the purposes of sub-section (4) 
of s.14 - Thus, in either case, where a person has been inducted 
genuinely as a partner or where the partnership is a ruse, the 
requirement of consent in writing is necessary - Jn the present case, 
there is no evidence for tenant having obtained consent in writing 
for the landlord before allowing the son-in-law to occupy the 
premises in pursuance of the partnership deed - Therefore, the 
occupation of the tenanted shop by son-in-law of the tenant amounts 
to a sub-letting within the meaning of s.14(1) (b) r!w. s.14(4) and 
hence tenants are liable for eviction - Appeal disposed of - Rent-
control and Eviction. 
Smt. Krishnawati v. Shri Hans [?.aj 1974 (2) SCR 524 : · 
(1974) 1 sec 289 - referred to . 
. . 
1974 (2) SCR 524 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
594 
Para8 
MUNSHI LAL v. SMT. SANTOSH & ORS. 
595 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1327 
A 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.12.2011 of the High Court 
of Delhi in CM (M) No. 1574 of2010. 
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Manoj C. Mishra, Hrishikesh Chitaley, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
Rauf Rahim, Mrs. Poulami Das Dey, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. · 
2. This appeal has been filed by the landlord against the judgment 
and order of the High Court of Delhi in CM (M) No. 1574of2010. The 
High Court held that the respondent-tenant, Hakim Rai had not sub-let 
the premises to his son-in-law, Raj Kumar in pursuance of a partnership 
deed dated 20.05.1983 entered into between them. 
3. Hakim Rai died and was substituted by respondent Nos.I to 5 
i.e. his widow and four daughters. The respondent No. I, Smt. Sumitra 
~ Devi, was deleted from the array of parties upon her de'ath. 
B 
c 
D 
4. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant'on the ground· 
E 
that the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law in contravention. · 
of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred. 
to as 'the Act'). The landlord had also sought eviction of the tenant on 
the ground of arrears of rent. As of now the only ground that stitvives is . 
that of sub-letting the tenant having paid off the arrears according to · 
~ 
F 
5. The tenancy was in respect of a Kiraria shop at the monthly 
rent of RS. 501-. The tenant w~s an old .and infirm man, incapable of 
running the business on his own. It has been found.that.the son-in-law . 
sat in the shop and conducted business exclus.ively therefrom. The dispute 
was whether he was doing business along .with his fatber,in-law or 
G 
independent ofbim, i.e. whether be was doing business exclusively behind 
the fa~ade of a partnership or as a genuine partner. It is an uncontroverted 
fact before us that the landlord's permission in writing was not obtained 
·before the tenant bad allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop. 
H 
596 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1 S.C.R. 
6. The Rent Controller found that the partnership was a ruse and 
that it was the son-in-law who was in exclusive possession of the shop 
and running the business on his own. No books of accounts were 
maintai"ned, no profit and loss accounts were maintained, and no stock 
registers concerning the goods in the shop were maintained, as required 
by the partnership deed. Moreover, the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.