NAND KISHORE versus RAM KISHAN &: ANR.

Citation: [1967] 1 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 25-08-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
NAND KISHORE 
V. 
RAM KISHAN &: ANR. 
August 25, 1966 
[K. SUBBA RAO, C.J. AND J. M. SHELAT, J.] 
Delhi Rent Control Act (S9 of 1958), ss. 17(3), 18(2) and 50, and 
Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act (38 of 1952), s. 20-Tenancy deter-
mined before commencement of the Act of 1958-Sult by sul>-tenant claim-
ing to l>e statutury tenant-If malntainal>le. 
The landlord of the premises in dispute, obtained a decree for eject. 
ment against bis tenant before the commencement of the Delhi Rent 
Control Act, 1958. 
The sub-tenant was not a party to that suit and 
the 1ub-tenancy was not determined by that decree. In 1962, the 1ub-
teoa.nt filed a suit against the landlord claiming to have become a statu-
tory tenant of the premises. The landlord contended that under s. 50 
of the Act, no civil court shall entertain any suit in respect of a matter 
which the C&.troller is empowered by or under the Act to decide, and 
that as s. 17 ( 3) of the Act empowered the Controller to decide a dispute 
in regard to the question whether a person was a sub-tenant or not, the · 
suit was not maintainable. 
HELD : ·Section 50 was not a bar to the suit. 
. The provision of the Act applicable to a case where the interest of a 
l>mallt had been determined before the commencement of the Act, but 
the interest of the sub-tenant was allowed to subsist is s. 18(2). Under 
thiS sub-section the sub-tenant shall, with effect from the date of the 
commencement of the Act, be deemed to have become, by a statutory 
fiction, a tenant under the landlord. There ls no provision In the Act 
under which a dispute in respect of 1uch a sul>-tenancy could be decided 
by tho Controller. Any dispute raiSed by such a sub-tenant does not [all 
tinders. 17(3). for, s. 17(3) applies only to a case where a dispute 
arises during the subsistence of the main tenancy after the Act came 
into force, ancl where the. dispute was raised within two months of the 
issue of the notice of sub-letting, by the tenant or sub-tenant. [l 71 A-CJ 
Mohd. Mapwod v. Tikam Das, (1966] 1 S.C.R .. 128, explained. 
Moreover, under ·s. 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act. 
1952, on the eviction of the tenant, the sub-tenant would be deemed 
to have become a tenant of the landlord. There is no provision in th• 
Deihl Rent Control Act, 1958, which took away that vested right or 
empowered the Controller to decide a dispute raised in regard to it. 
Section 50, therefore could not have any bearing on the maintainability 
of the suit. (171 E-0] 
· 
CIVIL' APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 467 of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
March 4, 1965 of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi 
in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 125-D of 1964. 
!~8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1967) I S.C.R. 
A. K. Sen, E. C. Agarwal and P. C. Agarwala, for the 
A 
appellant. 
Gauri Dayal for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Subba Rao, C. J. This appeal by special leave raises the ques-
tion of the construction of some of the provisions of the Delhi 
Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958), hereinafter called the 
Act. 
Appellant-Isl defendant is the owner of premises No. 6022, 
Gali Mandir Wali, Arya Samaj, Delhi. 
Ram Saran Das, res-
pondent No. 2 herein, was the tenant of t.he appellant in respect 
of the said premises and Ram Kishan Das, respondent No. I here-
in, was a sub-tenant. 
On January 30, 1959 the appellant obtained 
a decree for ejectment against the 2nd respondent from the court 
of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi. To that suit the 1st respondent. 
the sulrtenant, was not made a party. 
When that decree was 
sought to be executed against the 2nd respondent, the j~t respondent 
obstructed delivery of possession of the premises on the ground 
that he, as a sub-tenant, had become a tenant under the provisions 
of the Act. The executing court rejected his claim. Thereafter, 
on May 22, 1962, the 1st respondent filed a suit in the Court of 
the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi, against the appellant and 
respondent 2 praying for a decree for a permanent injunction 
against the. appellant and the 2nd respondent restraining the ap-
pellant from taking possession of the said premises. The appellant 
inter a/ia contended that s. 50 of the Act was a bar to the· main-
tainability of the suit in a civil court. 
It is not necessary to state 
the other defences, as nothing turns on them in this appeal. The 
said plea was rejected. 

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