SHALIMAR TAR PRODUCTS LTD. versus H.C. SHARMA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1023 · Decided: 12-11-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SHALIMAR TAR PRODUCTS LTD. 
A 
~ 
v. 
H.C. SHARMA & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 12, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
B 
1' 
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958: Sections 14(1) proviso (b), 16(2) 
.k 
and (3)-Tenant-Eviction on ground of sub letting-consent to sub 
letting should be in writing-Mere permission or acquiecence would not 
do-Waiver of this statutory right-Not permissible. 
I ;f 
The respondent-landlord sought eviction of the appellant-tenant c 
on the ground of having sub-let without written consent the portion in 
his occupation in favour of M/s. R.C. Abrol & Co. The appellant re· 
sisted the petition for eviction, contending that it was not maintainable 
in the absence of a notice to quit while determining the tenancy, that 
there was no sub-letting or parting of possession by the appellant in D 
favour of M/s. R.C. Abrol & Co., in view of Clause 14 of the Lease 
agreement, which provided: "That the lessee undertakes not to sub-let 
the premises to any other party without the written permission of the 
lessor and that the lessee's contractors M/s. R.C. Abrol and Co. will 
'.,.,( 
share the premises with the permission of the lessor''. The Rent Control 
Tribunal ordered eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub-letting. 
E 
The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal of the appellant and 
--
confirmed the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal ordering eviction. 
In the appeal to this Court by special leave it was contended for 
the appellant, that there was no sub-letting or parting of possession by p· 
;-
the appellant-tenant in favour of M/s. R.C. Abrol & Co. (P) Ltd., and 
that if there was sub-letting that had been made with the written con· 
sent of the landlord. 
Dismissing the Appeal, 
HELD: 1. Sections 14(1) proviso (b), 16(2) and (3) of the Delhi G 
Rent Control Act, 1958 require the tenant to obtain consent of the 
•--( 
landlord in writing for sub-letting of the premises. The purpose of such 
written consent was that it would cut out litigation on this ground. Mere 
permission or acquiescence would not do. The consent must be to the 
specific sub-letting and must be in writing. There is no implied 
H 
permission. l1026A, 1028D) 
1023 
1024 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[!988) I S.C.R. 
South Asia Industries Private Ltd. v. S. Sarup Singh & Others, 
'.I(' 
A A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 346, referred to. 
Raja Ram Goyal v. Ashok Kumar and Others, [1975) All India 
Rent Control Journal 534; Kartar Singh v. Shri Vijay Kumar and 
Another, [1878] All India Rent Control Journal 264 and Mis. Delhi 
B Vanaspati Syndicate, Delhi v. Bhagwan Dass Faquir Chand, A.I.R. 
C 
1972 Delhi 17, approved. 
J" 
2. Everyone has a right to waive and to agree to waive the 
>;o 
advantage of a law made solely for the benefit and protection of the 
individual in his individual capacity. Waiver is a question of fact which 
1 
has to be decided by facts and evidence. [1029C) 
~'-
Chaplin v. Smith, [1926) 1 King's Bench Division 198, referred to. 
In the instant case, there was no question of waiver. There was· no 
conscious relinquishment of the advantage of any statute. No Court bas 
D gone into this fact. It does not seem to have been urged before the High 
Court also. As this requirement of the statute is in the public interest 
there cannot be any question of waiver of a right, dealing with the rights 
of the tenants or the landlord. [1029D) 
3. To constitute sub-letting there must be parting of the legal 
E possession. Parting of the legal possession means possession with the 
rights to include and also the right to exclude others. This is a question 
of fact. [1032B] 
F 
Mehta Jagjivan Vanechand v. Doshi Vanechand, A.I.R. 1972 
Gujarat 6, referred to. 
In the instant case, exclusive possession was given to the sub-
lessee, R.C. Abrol & Co. and the tenant has transferred the right to 
possess in that portion. It is clear that the sub-letting was done wihout 
the consent in writing of the landlord. There was, therefore an inevit-
able breach of the covenant. The High Court was therefore right in 
G upholding the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and directing eviction 
of the appellant. [1032G-1033A) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1425 
of 1973. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21. 9 .1973 of the Delhi High 
SHALIMARTARPRODUCTSv. H.C.SHARMAIMUKHARJI,J.] 
1025 
Court in S.A.0. No. 294 of 1972. 
A 
Dr. Shankar Ghosh and Rathin Das for the Appellant. 
A.B. Rohtagi, Soli J. Sorabjee, Mrs. R. Swami, A.K. Verma 
and Ms. 

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