Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Helper Girdhiarbhai vs Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri And ... on 6 May, 1987
Ld. counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that to
prove the fact of subletting, petitioner has to prove not only the parting of the
possession to the sub tenant by the tenant but also the parting of the
possession with a consideration. Ld. counsel for the respondents further
argued that not only the petitioner failed to establish any of the essentials of
section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act, even in her cross examination she admitted that
respondent no. 1 is having control over the tenanted premises. Ld. counsel for
E-155/09/08 Mahant Savita Rani Vs. Surender Aggarwal & Ors. Page 12 of 17
//13//
the respondents, thus, submitted that in view of the categorical admission of
the petitioner regarding the respondent no. 1 having control over the tenanted
premises, the case of the petitioner u/s 14 (1) (b) falls flat on the ground. Ld.
counsel for the respondents while so arguing also relied upon the following
two citations :- (i) Helper Girdharbhai Vs. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri
and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1782 and (ii) M/s Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs.
Life Insurance Corporation of India, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1240.
M/S Bharat Sales Ltd vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 5 February, 1998
In M/s Bharat Sales Ltd.
case (supra), it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "sub-
tenancy or sub letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up
possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts
another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes
about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the
tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this
process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted
behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring
possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord,
in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor
had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised
property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person,
instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to
whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of
that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove,
by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the
tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove,
by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sub let had
paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is
an essential element of lease or sub-lease. It may be paid in cash or in kind or
may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump-
sum in advance covering the period for which the premises is let out or sub-let
or it may have been paid or promised to be paid periodically. Since payment
of rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does
not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the Court
E-155/09/08 Mahant Savita Rani Vs. Surender Aggarwal & Ors. Page 14 of 17
//15//
is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case proved at the
trial, including the delivery of exclusive possession to infer that the premises
were sub let".
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1