Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Lal Chand vs Gopi Kishan And Seven Ors. on 18 January, 1978 cites

South Asia Industries Private Ltd vs S. B. Sarup Singh And Others on 18 January, 1965

(4) As already stated, the said order was confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal by its order, dated 15th May, 1969. It is against the said order of the Tribunal that the present Second Appeal has been filed by the landlord, Lal Chand. The Second Appeal came up for admission before Andley J. (as his lordship then was). By an order, dated 10th September, 1969, the Second Appeal was admitted by the learned Judge, but notice was directed to be issued only to respondents 1, 6, 7 and 8, and notice was refused to be issued to the other subtenants. The result is that the Second Appeal stands dismissed as against respondent 2 to 5, and the order of the Tribunal has become final as against them. The Second Appeal, as it stands now, is only as against respondents 1, 6, 7 and 8. As stated above, the ground on which eviction was refused by the first Additional Controller and the Tribunal as against the aforesaid respondents was that the unlawful subletting was not by the tenant (respondent 1) but was by the subtenant, respondent 6, and there could, therefore, be no order of eviction for the unlawful act of subletting by the subtenant. The view taken by the first Additional Controller and the Tribunal was that under clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Rent Control Act, eviction could be ordered only if the A pTemises were sublet by-the tenant without the written consent of the landlord, and not when the subletting without the consent of the landlord was made by the subtenant. Support for the said view was sought to be derived from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of South Asia Industries (P) Ltd. (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 164 - K S Rao - Full Document
1