Padam Chand Vaish v. Chaman Lal Bajaj & Anr

INDERMEET KAUR, J APRIL 51h, 2016 A C.M. (M)No.1300/201 I Page 1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 31.03.2016 Judgment delivered on: 05.04.2016 + CM(M) 1300/201 I & C.M. No.1389/2016 PADAM CHAND VAISH Petitioner Through Mr. C. fiari Shankar, Sr. Mv, with Mr. Padam Kant Saxena. Mr. Ravi Garg, Mr. .lagdish. Mr. P.K. Singh and p Mr. Ashly Chairan, Advs. versus CHA MAN LAL BAJA.J & ANR Respondents through Mr. Ravi Gupta. Sr. j\dv. with Mr. P.K. Rawal, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1NDERMEET KAUR, J. The petitioner who is landlord helore this Court is aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RC]) vide which the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 24.05.2008 had been reversed. The impugned judgment had held that the sub-tenant i.e. Chaman La! Bajaj is a valid sub-tenant and his right was protected under the provisions of Section 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafier referred C.M. ('vi) Nc.1300/201 1 )1 16 to as the 'said Act'); the premises having been validly sub-let to the sub- tenant. the sub-tenant could not be evicted. The appeal of the sub-tenant was accordingly allowed. Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by the landlord (Padam Chand Vaish) seeking eviction of his tenant (Madan Gopal Har Gopal). The eviction petition was founded u/s 14 (l)(b) of the said Act. The submission of the landlord was that a sub-tenancy had been illegally created by the tenant which had entitled the landlord to seek an eviction order. This petition was decreed in favour of the landlord on 03.08.2002. The plea of lawful sub-tenancy sought to be raised by the tenant was rejected. The appeal filed by the tenant was dismissed by the Tribunal on 07.11.2003. This judgment was endorsed by the High Court in C.M. (M) No.1004/2003. Vide judgment dated 25.09.2004. the SLP (C) Civil No.23108/2004 was dismissed by the Apex Court on 22. 11 .2004. On 14.11.2003, the landlord applied for the execution of the decree before the Executing Court. Objections were filed under Section 25 of the said Act. These were filed by the legal heir of the tenant as also by the sub-- tenant. The ARC vide a detailed order dated 24.05.2008 dismissed these C,\4. (M) No.1300/2011 Pac 2 oilb objections. The ARC returned a finding that requirement of notice under Section 17 (2) of the said Act not having been complied with; the sub-tenant was not entitled to the protective umbrella under Section 18 of the said Act. He was of the view that sub-tenancy was not lawful. Objections of the sub- tenant were accordingly dismissed. An appeal was preferred before the RCT. The RCT (vide the impugned judgment) had allowed objections of the sub-tenant and set aside the order of the ARC. Arguments have been addressed at length. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner/landlord submits that the order passed by the ARC was legal; the Jaw 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. Subliash Chand Agarwal as also another judgment of a Bench of this Court reported as AIR 2000 Del 357 Subhash Chand Ag.ganvai Vs. Murli Manohar Lal. ILI C.M. (M) No.1300/2011 Page 3 oflG 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 unde