Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.38 seconds)Section 17 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors vs Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors on 21 August, 2001
7 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/landlord submits that the
order passed by the ARC was legal; the law relating to the sub-tenancy had
been correctly appreciated; since admittedly no notice had been given by the
sub-tenant under the provisions of Section 17 (2) of the said Act and this
provision being mandatory, it could not be said that the sub-tenant was
entitled to the protection under Section 18 of the said Act. Learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Bench of
the Apex Court reported as (2001) 6 SCC 645 Kapil Bhargava Vs. Subhash
Chand Aggarwal as also another judgment of a Bench of this Court reported
as AIR 2000 Del 357 Subhash Chand Aggarwal Vs. Murli Manohar Lal.
C.M. (M) No.1300/2011 Page 3 of 16
Submission being that a sub-tenancy can become valid only if the notice as
postulated under Section 17 is served upon the landlord. In the absence of
such notice which is a mandatory provision, a lawful sub-tenancy cannot be
created and the so called sub-tenant cannot acquire a status which is
specifically denied to him by the Statute in the absence of this mandate not
having been complied with. Written submissions have also been filed.
Submission being reiterated that under Section 17 of the said Act, in addition
to the requirement of a written consent of the landlord, notice to the landlord
by the sub-tenant in the requisite format is also required to be given and
although in the instant case, the RCT had returned a finding that the consent
of the landlord has been obtained yet even presuming this to be the correct
factual position in the absence of the notice by the sub-tenant to the landlord,
a valid sub-tenancy cannot be created. Submission being again reiterated that
it is an admitted position that no notice had been given by the sub-tenant to
the landlord and in fact this is not even the case of the sub-tenant. The twin
requirements of Section 17 having not been fulfilled, the impugned judgment
is clearly an illegality and is liable to be set aside.
Girdhari Lal & Sons vs Balbir Nath Mathur & Ors on 26 February, 1986
8 Per contra, arguments have been refuted. Learned senior counsel for
the respondent submits that the impugned judgment in no manner calls for
C.M. (M) No.1300/2011 Page 4 of 16
any interference. The purpose and purport of enacting Sections 16 to 18 of
the said Act was to give a protection to the sub-tenant and the intent of the
legislation has been fully complied with as in this case apart from a letter
dated 18.02.1980 (admitted document) sent by the landlord to the tenant
(Madan Gopal Har Gopal) wherein the name of the sub-tenant specifically
finds mention and the landlord having specifically granted permission to the
sub-tenant (Manohar Lal Chaman Lal & Sons) not only continue to retain the
premises but also to construct a „duchatti‟, it does not now lie in the mouth
of the landlord to state that he was not aware of this sub-tenancy. Learned
senior counsel for the respondent further submits that apart from this letter
addressed by the erstwhile owner (Mahaliram Lachman Dass) of the
property to the tenant, a sale deed by virtue of which the landlord had
become the owner of this property as also the specific clause (para 3 of the
sale deed) wherein also the fact that the landlord was fully aware of this sub-
tenancy in favour of Manohar Lal Chaman Lal & Sons finds mention is
another admitted document and the RCT had correctly appreciated the
factual matrix of the case to hold that the protective umbrella of the said Act
was available to the sub-tenant. Learned senior counsel for the respondent
has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported as (1986)
C.M. (M) No.1300/2011 Page 5 of 16
2 SCC 237 M/s Girdhari Lal & Sons Vs. Balbir Nath Mathur and Others to
support his proposition that the intent of the Legislature has to be gathered
from the factual matrix of each case and the intent of the Legislature
admittedly in incorporating Sections 17 & 18 of the said Act was to afford a
protection to sub-tenants who have been inducted into possession with the
consent of the landlord. Submission being that those sub-tenants who had
obtained consent of the landlord should be entitled to such a protection and
although normally the law envisages that an eviction order passed against the
tenant would be binding against the sub-tenant as well which sub-tenancy
had been knowingly created and the landlord being fully aware of this fact,
such a sub-tenant cannot be evicted. Further submission being that the Apex
Court in this judgment had in fact laid down the proposition that the Statute
has to be interpreted keeping in view the object of the legislation and
although ordinarily the plain language should be adopted but not so where it
would lead to an anomaly and injustice. The impugned judgment calls for no
interference.
Section 25 in The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
Subhash Chand Aggarwal vs Murli Manohar Lal & Ors. on 28 February, 2000
19 What has been argued primarily before this Court is the provision of
Section 17 (2). Admittedly Section 17 (2) speaks of a notice which has to be
C.M. (M) No.1300/2011 Page 12 of 16
served by the sub-tenant to the landlord in a prescribed manner notifying him
of the termination of the sub-tenancy. The whole purpose of the notice as
envisaged under Section 17 is to give protection to the sub-tenant to save
him from eviction; if such a notice has been served and along with this
notice a written consent of the landlord has been obtained, such a sub-tenant
will have an independent right as that of a tenant. The Apex Court in the
judgment of M/s Gerhard Lal (supra) has enunciated the law clearly. The
object of Sections 17 & 18 was to protect the sub-tenant from eviction where
the landlord has obtained a decree of eviction against a principal tenant. In
an action for eviction by the landlord against the principal tenant, the sub-
tenant would normally have no defence of his own; he would go with the
tenant. It was the awareness created arising out of such like problematic
situations that the legislature has enacted Sections 17 & 18 of the said Act.
Thus a sub-tenant who had been inducted into possession with the consent of
the landlord would be entitled to the protective umbrella of Section 18. The
legality of the possession of the sub-tenant was founded upon his
establishing the written consent of the landlord. The Apex Court had gone on
to state that there is no magical form in which a consent has to be given by a
landlord; the essence of the matter being that the consent of sub-tenancy
C.M. (M) No.1300/2011 Page 13 of 16
must be obtained from the landlord. The purpose of giving a notice under
Section 17 (2) by the sub-tenant to the landlord was only in continuation of
the intent of the legislation which was to safeguard the right of the sub-tenant
where the sub-tenant was able to establish and prove that the landlord had
consented to his sub-tenancy. This notice as contemplated under Section 17
(2) of the said Act was to inform the landlord of the creation of this sub-
tenancy and termination of the sub-tenancy within a month of this
termination. The object of the notice as is clear from the language of Section
17 (2) was to tell the landlord that the sub-tenant was sitting in the premises
in his own right.
1