Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 9116-17 of 1996
PETITIONER:
HEM CHAND AND ORS.
RESPONDENT:
HARI KISHAN ROHTAGI AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/09/2001
BENCH:
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & S.N. PHUKAN
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2001 Supp(3) SCR 331
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The dissatisfied landlord is in appeal by special leave against the
judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Second Appeal Nos.
112-113/1979 dated February 23, 1996. The appellants filed Suit No.
E-384/70 in the Court of Shri M.A. Khan VI Additional Rent Controller,
Delhi seeking eviction of respondent nos. 1 5 on three grounds; however,
the only ground which suvives is provided under clause (b) of sub-section
(1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ’the
Act’). The allegation of the appellants was that respondent no. 5 was
inducted as sub-tenant without the written consent of the appellants and
therefore respondent nos. 1 to 4 who are the tenants should be evicted from
the said premises. The respondents took the plea that the consent was
obtained to sublet the premises.
The learned Rent Controller, the Rent Tribunal and the High Court found
that subletting in favour of the 5th respondent was without the consent of
the appellants and ordered his eviction, however, the grievance of the
appellants is that the other six sub-tenants are occupying various portions
of the tenanted premises and therefore the courts ought to have ordered
eviction of respondent nos. 1 to 4 instead of confining the order of
eviction to respondent no. 5, one sub-tenant only. It appears from the
pleadings that in the eviction petition the landlord stated that out of 8
sub-tenants, six sub- tenants were inducted into possession of different
portions with his consent. It that be so, neither the tenants nor the sub-
tenants could have been ordered to be evicted merely because one of the
sub-tenants was inducted into possession of a portion of tenanted premises
without the consent of the landlord. So far as respondent nos. 1 to 4 as
well as the other sub-tenants are concerned there can be no legitimate
complaint of sub-letting because even according to the petition of the
appellants they were inducted as the sub-tenants with his consent. This is
not a fit case to order eviction of respondents 1 to 4 under Section 14 (l)
(b) of the Act. We therefore find no illegality in the order of the High
Court warranting our interference. The appeals are therefore dismissed, but
in the circumstances of the case, without costs.