LexSOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE. LTD. versus S. SARUP SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• A B c - D E F ... G H t SOUTH ASIA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE. LTD. v. S. SARUP SINGH AND OTHERS April 19, 1965 [A. K. SARKAR, J. R. MUDHOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] Delhi Rent Control Act (Act 59 of 1958), s. 14(1), Pr.oviso (b)~ Scope of. The respondents were the owners of certain premises in New Delhi. The lessee-a company-of these premises ass1gne.d the leas.e to the appellant. Alleging that the transfer was done without their consent, the respondents filed an application against .the lessee and the appellant under s. 14(1) proviso (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for recovery of possession. Pending the proceedings, the lessee went into liquidation and its name was struck off from the record. The Controller thereafter, passed an order in favour of. the respondents. Having moved unsuccessfnlly the Rent Control Tribu- nal and the High Court, the appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court contending that: (i) the order made against the appellant, after the lessee ceased to be a party, was incompetent, as the only person against whom an order for recovery of possession can be made under the clause, is the tenant who assigned the tenancy, and (ii) the clause in the lease by which the term "lessee" included the lessee's assignee operated as a consent by the respondents, to assign. HELD: (i) (Per Sarkar, J.). The Act contemplates orders for re- covery of possession also against persons Other than a tenant who has assigned or sub-let without the landlord's consent, so that, where the tenant becomes extinct without leaving any successor, an order can be made against a person who took an assignment of the lease from the tenant before the lease became extinct. [833C, D-E] The proviso expressly states when an order of ejectment can be made and the clauses of the proviso are not intended to indicate the persons against w.hom an order for recovery of possession could be made, but only the circumstances in which an order for recovery of possession may be made. [832E-G] The expression "the tenant 11 in cl. (b) is used only to emphasise that the tenant assigning must be the tenant of the landord seeking eviction. So read, the effect of the clause is that a land-lord can re- cover possession if his tenant assi_gns or sub-lets without his consent [832H, 833A-Bl . Since the object of the proviso is to enable the landlord to re- cover possession in the specified cases, orders against all "persons in oc.cupation" must have been contemplat.ed so that the landlord might without further tTouble recover posse~s1on. S~ction 18 plainly implies that an order for recovery of possession against a sub-tenant is con- templated by the proviso. Further, the order for recovery of posses- sion would, under s. 25, be binding on the assignee or sub-tenant and ther~f?re, they \Vould be interested in showing that there was' the requ1s1te coi:isent, and hence \Voulct be entitled to be m"ade parties to the proceedmgs. If they are thus entitled to be heard to oppose the order of ev1ct1on, such an order could be made ar:rainst them a1.:::o [833F-G, H; 834C, E, H-835A] 0 - • 829 830 SUPH.EME COURT REPORTS (1965) 3 S.C.R. Per Bachawat J.(i): Both the tenant and the assignee were pro- A perly parties to the proceedings for possession and if the tenant com- f pany had been dissolved, there is no reason why the proceedings could not continue against the assignee alone. f839G] It is true that other clauses of the proviso contemplate eviction of the tenant on the ground of some act on the part of the tenant against whom the proceeding for possession is brought, but under cl. (b), the assignment is a ground of eviction of both the assigning tenant and the assignee and the Controller has jurisdiction to make an order for possession not only against the assigning tenant but also against the assignee. [839H-840B] Per Mudholkar J. (Dissenting) The right which the respondents possessed to evict the defunct company from the premises, because the company had assigned the tenancy to the appellant without the respondents' consent could not be availed< of by them, and the appellant could therefore continue in possession. [838B-C] B c The ban against eviction of a tenant in s. 14(1) is lifted by the proviso only with respect to the tenant and not to any other person, because, a proviso is subservient to the main provision. Therefore, the D tenant must be a party to the proceeding right up
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.