Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

letting or transfer or any assignment as no rent agreement in respect of any sub­lease was entered into between respondent no. 1 and 2 and the terms and conditions of original lease are still existent between respondent no.2 and owner of the property. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner has not pleaded ground of "subletting" only but has claimed eviction on all the three grounds mentioned in 14(1)(b) of DRC Act. Once the respondent no.2 admits that she has "received the tenancy rights", same is assignment as envisaged under section 14(1)(b) of DRC Act. Even the family settlement discusses various properties of the parties i.e. respondent no.1 and 2 and provides that respondent no. 2 shall have exclusive rights over the goods lying in the suit shop and shall have rights to get the tenancy transferred in her name at her own expense. IT is mentioned in said settlement that the parties shall execute the required documents whenever needed in favour of each other qua the parties settled through the family settlement. It is also mentioned that first party i.e. respondent no.1 shall not claim right in the movable and immovable property of the second party. Thus, the incidents of assignment of tenancy are writ large in the whole body of family settlement. It is to be noted that as there was no pre­ existent right of respondent no.2 in the tenancy, such transfer cannot be equated to a relinquishment by one tenant in favour of co­tenant. Thereby from :: 12 ::

the reply of respondent no.2 and from the express provisions of the family settlement it stands admitted that the tenancy rights were assigned by the respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no. 2. However, it is not the case of respondent no.2 that any written consent was taken from the landlord regarding the same. Thus, ground of 'assignment' u/S 14(1)(b) DRC Act stands admitted by respondent no.2.