Kapil Kumar Nigam vs Kaniz Fatima
1986 Latest Caselaw 281 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Wad, J.

(1) This is deft's appeal against order of Adj dt. 6.8.84 whereby the learned Judge has granted injunction restraining the defendants from managing or dealing with property in dispute and to recover rents from tenants or to change rent receipts. The defendants are heirs of late Jai Gopal Nigam, The dispute relates to the alleged rights of the appellants to manage and deal with (suit) properties.

(2) The appellant submits that he is a lessee of the premises protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondents submit that late Shri Ram Gopal Nigam was only agent/license/contractor for collection of rents. We must, therefore, refer to the two agreements for their proper consideration.

(3) The appellant's predecessor is described throughout as and the transaction is described as means rent. In the two agreements the consideration is Rs. 450.00 & Rs. 150.00 respectively. This is described in the agreement as FOR understanding true nature of a transaction we must look to the substance and not mere verbal form. It is a well known fact that in old Delhi there was a practice of appointing for collection of rent for looking after the old properties given on rent to large number of tenants. Even in number of temples there is a practice amongst the priestly class to auction anticipated offerings and money for a year or a particular period. This auction is called In such auctions or management of property and possession is generally given to the for effective control and realisation of periodic payments.

(4) In the present case, the predecessor of the appellant was entrusted with the management. He was also permitted to make additional constructions, to accept surrender from the tenants or to induct new tenants. All these powers are incidents of efficient management and collection of rent. Looking to the document as a whole, it is clear that no interest in property as is understood in the law of property is intended to be transferred. The practice of is much older than the law of Transfer of Property or Rent Act. It may be noticed, that predecessor of the appellant never claimed to be a tenant either under T.P.A. or Rent Act. In fact, the practice of has no exact equivalent in the English Law of real Properly or equity. It is, therefore, not proper to impose an English law concept of lease (or similar jural category) on the transaction of.

(5) The predecessor of the appellant is not described in the agreements as a but Loosely translated it would mean a lessee in the capacity of a So also, the transaction is described not as lease but As against this the real tenants from whom the rent is to be collected by the are described as simpliciter. I, therefore, prima facie hold that the transaction as evidenced by the two agreements is a contract of and not a lease. No interest in property was transferred to the and the rights conferred on him are personal rights in relation to immovable property.

(6) If rights are personal rights unknown to property law or Rent Act, prima facie, the appellant or his predecessor arc not entitled to protection of Delhi Rent Control Act or T.P.A. The owner has a right to terminate such a contract. As a matter of fact, the original term of the agreement had come to an end after the expiry of ten years in 1975. Even if it is assumed that the revocation in 1983 was improper and that the agreement had continued for the further period of ten years by consent of the owner, even those agreements have come to an end by efflux of time in 1985. On this prima facie conclusion in favor of the owner, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury consideration are to be determined.

(7) It is common knowledge that rents all over Delhi have rocketed sky high in recent years. It is impossible to get a shop in old Delhi unless high premium is paid. There is no reason why the owner should be deprived of high rents. The appellant has enjoyed these benefits for ten years after the lapse of original agreements only because the owner did not take timely legal action. If the appellant is now allowed to deal with the property to accept surrender of premises or to induct new tenants there will be serious complications prejudicial to the interest of the owner. Third party interest newly created will create insurmountable difficulties for the owner in future. This might mean irreparable loss to the owner, as the tenants will have the protection of the Delhi Rent Act. For these reasons, the owner is entitled to temporary injunction. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld.

(8) This court had passed an order of status quo while admitting the appeal and given some directions. The said direction are vacated. But as the suit is pending following directions are given : THE appellant shall file a true and complete affidavit in the trial court in regard to his dealings with tenants and the rent and amounts collected by him during the period of status quo order of this Court. He will furnish appropriate security as directed by the trial court considering the amounts collected by him. The respondents shall not induct new tenants without the prior permission of the trial court. The respondents shall also file quarterly returns of the rents collected by him in the said court till the disposal of the suit.