Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) On 28th August, 1957 Smt. Ahmedi Begum filed a suit for eviction and recovery against the said tenant. On 31st August, 1959 the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi passed a decree for ejectment and recovery of Rs. 32.554/4.00 . The decree-holder took out execution in the court of the Subordinate Judge which was transferred to this court under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966.

(3) Under the terms of the two lease deeds between the aforesaid parties, the tenant Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar was authorised to sublet the whole or part of the property. He accordingly sublet various portions of the said property to numerous persons. He also sublet a portion of the said property to Manphool Singh Sharma (appellant in E.F.A (OS) No. 7 of 1971) in April, 1948 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00 and another portion to Yog Raj Goswami (appellant in E.F.A (OS) No. 9 of 1972) in August, 1955 on a monthly rent of Rs. 25.00 . On 1st September 1956 the tenant sublet the entire property to Surinder Kumar Sharma by a registered lease deed. The sub-tenant Surinder Kumar Sharma was further authorised by the registered lease deed to sublet any portion of the said property. The tenant by letter dated 5th December, 1956 directed all the occupants-sub-tenants in the property to attorn to the sub-tenant Surinder Kumar Sharma. The appellants in these two appeals accordingly attorney as sub-tenants under the sub-tenant Surinder Kumar Sharma. The appellants allege that they sent separate notices regarding creation of sub-tenancy in their favor under Section 17 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the 1858 Act'). The appellants claim that they have been in occupation of the premises in their possession as lawful subtenants and as the decree for ejectment was passed against the tenant on 31st August, 1959, they became direct tenants under the landlady-decree-holder. Both the appellants filed separate applications/ objections in May, 1968 in the Execution Case No. 15 of 1967 pleading the said facts. They claim that they are not liable to be dispossessed in execution of the ejectment decree and that they have become tenants directly under the decree-holder. Their applicants/ objections were dismissed by the learned single Judge by the two judgments dated 17th August, 1971 and 21st November, 1972. These two appeals have arisen out of the said two judgments.

(4) In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellants it is necessary to give some other facts. As already stated, Surinder Kumar Sharma was inducted as a sub-tenant by the tenant S. Sardul Singh Caveeshar with effect from 1st September, 1956 and he was authorised to further sublet any portion of the sard property. On 8th January, 1968 the sub-tenant Surinder Kumar Sharma filed an application/objection (1.R. No. 1329 of 1968 in Execution Case No. 15 of 1967) seeking protection against dispossession in execution of the said ejectment decree on the ground that he was a lawful sub-tenant and on passing of the decree of ejectment against the tenant he became a direct tenant of the entire property under the decree-holder under Section 20 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the 1952 Act'). His objections were decided by Jagjit Singh, J. on 23rd February, 1968. It was held that though the lease deeds in favor of Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar tenant did give power to him to have sub-tenants but such a sub-tenant was not empowered to create further tenancies. The learned Judge further held that Surinder Kumar Sharma was a lawful sub-tenant only with respect to that portion of the premises which was in his actual possession and that other occupants could not be regarded as lawful sub-tenants. It was therefore ordered that he be not dispossessed from the portion in his actual possession only. The appeal was filed against the said order dated 23rd February, 1968 (E.F.A. (OS) No. 7 of 1968) which was dismissed by the Division Bench on 4th March, 1968.

(11) The last question is whether the appellants are entitled to be protected against eviction in execution of the ejectment decree without the service of notice of creation of sub-tenancy required to be served under Section 17 of the 1958 Act. It is not disputed that S Sardul Singh Caveeshar was permitted in writing to sublet the whole or part of the premises. He sublet the portions of the suit property to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per month. Thus the appellants were inducted as sub-tenants with the written consent of the landlady. The suit for eviction was filed on 28th August, 1957 and the decree for ejectment was passed on 31st August, 1958. The 1952 Act was in force when the suit was filed. But the 1958 Act had come into force when the decree for ejectment was passed. In both the Ads there is provision for the protection of lawful sub-tenants. Under Section 13 of the 1952 Act if a person had been inducted with the oral consent of the landlord prior to the commencement of that Act i.e. before 9th June, 1952 he was deemed to be a lawful sub-tenant. If such a person was inducted as a sub-tenant with the written consent of the landlord after 8th June 1952 he was also deemed to be a lawful sub-tenant. In other words if a person was inducted after 1th June, 1952 without the written consent of the landlord he was not a lawful sub-tenant. In the present case both the appellants, as already held, were inducted under the written consent of the landlady, Section 20 of the 1952 Act reads as under :-