POORAN CHAND versus MOTILAL & OTHERS

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 11-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
Dectmber, 11. 
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
POORAN CHAND 
v. 
MOTILAL & OTHERS 
(S. J. IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. SUBBA RAO 
and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Rent Control-Revision-High Court, powers of-Illegal 
subletting-If confined to first sub-letting-Delhi and Ajmer 
Rent Control Act, 1952 (38 of 1952), 88. 13 (1) (b), 35. 
The landlords executed a lease of a residential premist:s 
in favour of the tenant for one year. More than a year after-
wards, the landlords gave the tenant a notice to quit and filed 
a suit for his eviction inter alia on the ground that he had sub-
let the premises without their consent. 
The tenant resisted 
the suit on the ground• that the notice to quit was illegal 
and that there was no illegal sub-letting as contemplated 
by s. 13 (I) (b) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control 
Act, 1952, as he had merely inducted a new sub-tenant 
in place of an old one. 
The trial Court decreed the suit 
but on appeal the Civil Judge dismissed it on the ground 
that the notice to quit was invalid. The landlords filed a second 
appeal before the High Court and the High Court allowed the 
"ame holding that after the expiry of the lease by effiux of time 
the tenant was a statutory tenant and no notice to quite was 
necessary. The tenant contended that no second appeal lay to 
the High Court and it could not have interfered with the decree 
of the Civil Judge in its powers of revision under s. 35 of the 
Act and that there was no illegal sub-letting. 
Held, that even if a second appeal did not lie, the High 
Court would have been justified in reversing the decree of the 
Civil Judge in exercise of its powers of revision under s. 35 of 
the Act. The power of the High Court under s. 35 was wider 
than that under s. 115, Code of Civil Procedure, though it 
could not be equated to that of its jurisdiction in an appeal. It 
was neither possible nor advisable to define with precision the 
scope and ambit of s. 35 but it should be left to the High 
Court to consider in each case whether the impugned judgment 
was according to law or not. 
In the present case, since the 
tenancy had expired by efflux of time, a notice to quit under 
s. 106, Transfer of Property Act was not necessary but the Civil 
Judge refused to pass a decree for eviction on a wrong legal 
-
• --
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
907 
basis that such notice was necessary. The decree of the Civil 
Judge was not "according to law" and the High Court was 
justified in 'etting aside. 
H ari Shankar v. Rao Girdliari Lal Chowdhury, [ 1962] 
Supp. IS. C.R. 933 and Bell & Co. Ltd. v. Waman H•mraj, 
(1938) 40 Born. L. R. 125, referred to. 
Held, further, that the tenant had sub-let the premises 
within the meaning of s. )3 (I) (b) (i} of the Act. 
This sec· 
tion provides for eviction if a tenant has sub .. let, assigned or 
otherwise parted with possession of the whole or any part of the 
premises without the consent of the landlord in writing. 
It 
was not confined to the first sub-letting and it covered the case 
where there was already a sub-tenant and a new sub-tenant 
was inducted when the previous one left. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal No. 624/1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and decree dated July 18, 1961, of the Rajasthan 
High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 
90of1960. 
G. C. Mathur, for the appellant. 
B. D. Sharma, for the respondents. 
1962. December 11. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
1962 
Pooran Chand 
v. 
Motil<I 
8UBBA RAO, J.-This appeal by special leave is 
Sub.ha a.., J. 
directed against the judgment and decree of the High· 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur set· 
ting aside those of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, 
and restoring those of the Subordinate Judge, First 
Class, Ajmer, decreeing the suit for eviction from the 
suit premises filed by the respondents against the 
appellant. 
The facts may be briefly stated. The building 
situate at No. 41 Purani Mandi, Ajmer, consists of a 
large number of rooms, and the respondents are its 
owners. 
On October 13, 1935, the said building 
196Z 
Poorsn C/""'4 
•• 
.ft.Iotilal 
Subba R .. , J. 
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
was taken on lease by the appellant's father for a 
period of one year on a rent of Rs. 50/- per month. 
On July 10, 1950, the respondents gave a lease of the 
said building in favour of the appellant for a period 
of one year on a rent of Rs. 65/- per month. On 
August 8, IIJ52, a fresh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.