Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.27 seconds)Waman Shriniwas Kini vs Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co on 16 February, 1959
9. I have considered the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties on this issue, and I do not find any substance in the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner. In this case, it has been established by the respondent-landlord that initially the demised premises was let out to respondent-Mangal Singh on rent @ Rs. 35/- per month somewhere in the year 1971. Subsequently, in the year 1985, the premises was let out by the said tenant to the petitioner without written consent of the respondent-landlord. In my opinion, when the sub-letting has been established, then, the sub-tenant cannot take the plea of waiver and estoppel on the ground that 'inspite of the knowledge about the subtenancy, the landlord has not filed the ejectment application for a reasonably long time. In the Act, it has been provided that a landlord can seek the ejectment of the tenant if the tenant has sub-let the premises without the written consent of the landlord. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Waman Shriniwas Kini's case (supra) has held that when the Rent Act prohibits sub-letting and makes it unlawful for a tenant to assign or to transfer his interest in the premises let to him and when the tenant makes himself liable to eviction under the Rent Act on the said ground, then, the tenant cannot be permitted to assert in a Court of justice to say that the landlord has waived his right. It was held that the plea of waiver is not available against the Statute.
Ram Saran vs Pyare Lal And Anr on 16 January, 1996
In Ram Saran's case (supra), in which the decision of A.S. Sulochana v. C. Dharmalingam 1987(1) R.C.C. 213 was also considered, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the mere knowledge of the landlord about the creation of sub-tenancy which was never authorised by the landlord, cannot estop him from seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of sub-letting. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
Sh. Subhash Chander vs Sh. Surinder Singh on 21 July, 1994
In support of his contention, learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Bimla Devi Aggarwal v. Laxmi General Store 1989(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 329 and the decision of this Court in Subhash Chander v. Surinder Singh 1994(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 465.
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973
Section 14 in The Delhi Rent Act, 1995 [Entire Act]
A.S. Sulochana vs C. Dharmalingam on 28 November, 1986
In these circumstances, mere non-filing of the ejectment application for 10 years, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgments, would not debar the respondent-landlord from seeking ejectment on the ground of sub-letting.
Smt. Niki Devi And Ors. vs Smt. Saroj Bala on 14 February, 1997
8. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-landlord submitted that when it has been established that the sub-tenancy was created without the written consent of the landlord, then, merely on the ground that the ejectment application was filed after a long time of creation of sub-tenancy, the ejectment of the sub-tenant cannot be declined on the ground of estoppel and waiver. The counsel submitted that there cannot be a waiver or estoppel against the Statute, which provides that a tenant cannot create the sub-tenancy without the written consent of the landlord. In support of his contention. the learned Counsel relied upon the decisions for the Hon'ble Apex Court in Woman Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co. and Ram Saran v. Pyare Lal and Anr. 1996 Haryana Rent Reporter 137, and the decisions of this Court in Smt, Niki Devi v. Saroj Bala 1997 Haryana Rent Reporter 280, and Rajbir Kaur and Anr. v. Joginder Associates Architect, Designer & Decorator and Ors. 1999 Haryana Rent Reporter 36.
1