Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

388

At the time when the premises was leased by Om Prakash & Company to M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons a letter executed by Om Prakash & Company and attested by Balbir Nath Mathur was pass ed on to M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons. By this letter, Om Prakash & Company confirmed the lease and further undertook to pay to the appellant as damages a sum calculated at the rate of Rs.2500 per month for the unexpired period of the lease if the appellant had to vacate the premises before the expiry of the lease period of two years Simultaneously M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons executed a letter addressed to Balbir Nath Mathur in which they stated, after referring to the lease of the house in their favour by Om Prakash & Company, that they would pay a sum of Rs.8400 per annum as donation to the Shre Visheshwar Nath Memorial Public Charitable Trust, a trust of which Balbir Nath Mathur and others were trustees, if they stayed in the premises after the expiry of the period of lease. Another important document to which we may make a reference is a letter dated June 10, 1975 by which Om Prakash & Company demanded payment of arrears of rent from M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons. This letter was signed by Balbir Nath Mathur himself on behalf of Om Prakash Company. The contention of the appellants is that there was consent in writing by the landlord to the sub-tenancy, as well as notice and writing to the landlord of the sub- tenancy within the meaning of sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and therefore the sub-tenants M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons were entitled to be protected against eviction.

In order to appreciate the contention of the appellant it is necessary to set out sections 17(1) and 18(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 :-

"17(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act, any premises are sub-let either in whole or in part by the tenant with the previous consent in writing of the landlord, the tenant or the sub- tenant to whom the premises are sub-let may, in the prescribed manner, gave notice to the landlord of the creation of the sub-tenancy within one month of the date of such sub-letting and notify the termination of such sub-tenancy within one month of such termination.

The essence of the requirement, therefore, is that the consent of the landlord to the sub-tenancy and the notice of the creation of the sub-tenancy have to be evidenced by writing.

The writing is to be such as to indicate clearly the consent of the landlord to the creation of a sub-tenancy and his knowledge of the particular sub-tenancy after its creation.

The writing relating to the consent and the writing relation to the knowledge (notice) may be by different documents or they may telescope into the same document. Where, as in the present case, the agreement or the letter of the sub-tenancy in respect of the demised premises is attested by the landlord himself, there can be no question that the landlord has given his previous consent and that he has notice in writing of the sub-tenancy in respect of the particular premises. The requirements of sec. 17 and 18 both as regards to his consent and the notice to him are satisfied. There is no magical form in which the consent is to be given nor any charmed form in which the notice is to be sent. As we said, the essence of the matter is that the consent to the sub-tenancy and the notice of the sub-tenancy in respect of the premises must be evidenced by writing signed by the landlord and the tenant or the sub-tenant. In this view of the matter, the appellant in the present case is clearly entitled to the protection of secs. 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and he cannot, therefore, be evicted in execution of the decree obtained by Balbir Nath Mathur against Om Prakash & Company. We do not consider it necessary to embark into a discussion of the two cases cited before us Jagan Nath v. Abdul Aziz A.I.R. 1973 Delhi p.9 and Murari Ial v. Abdul Ghafar I.L.R. 1974 1 Delhi 45.

In normal case a sub-tenant under the Act can get relief under the provision of the Act only if he satisfies the twin conditions laid down in section 17, viz., that there must be the previous consent in writing by the land- lord, of the creation of the sub-tenancy and a notice in the prescribed manner by the sub-tenant of the creation of the sub-tenancy to the land-lord within one month of the date of such creation.

It is only when these two conditions are satisfied that the consequences mentioned in section 18(1) will follow. I should not, therefore, be understood to hold the view that, as a general rule, in all cases where the sub-tenant some- how secures the signature of the land-lord in some communication relating to tenancy, a consent in writing satisfying the requirements of the section is to be assumed. In this case, Messrs Om Prakash & Company and Balbir Nath Mathur have been hand in gloves with one another to defeat the appellants. It is the attestation by Balbir Nath Mathur on behalf of Messrs Om Prakash & Company in the letter dated June 10, 1975, that has found favour with us to assume consent in writing in the peculiar facts of the case. This, according to me, is an exceptional case with facts peculiar to its own. Normally, section 17 should be strictly complied with, for the sub-tenant to get the benefit under section