Mohan Arora vs Mrs. M. Panat
2000 Latest Caselaw 199 Del

ORDER

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12th September, 1985 passed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal in RCA No. 560 of 1985. By the impugned order, the learned Tribunal dismissed the first appeal of the Appellant and ordered his eviction from the suit premises.

2.The facts of the case are not in serious dispute. According to the Appellant, he and the Respondent entered into a lease deed dated 1st, September, 1978. In terms of Clause 5 of this lease deed, the Appellant was entitled to sub let, assign or otherwise part with the possession of a part of the whole of the demised premises. The admitted position is that the lease deed was not a registered document. It is also admitted that in view of Clause 5 of the lease deed, the Appellant had sublet a part of the suit premises.

3.The question that, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the sub letting of a part of the suit premises was permissible or not. The question raised in this appeal is no longer res integra, the controversy having been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Vs. Bihari Lal Kohli, .

4.In paragraph 8 of the Report, the Supreme Court held, inter alia, as follows:

"The question whether a lessee is entitled to create a sub lease or not is undoubtedly a term of the transaction of lease, and if it is incorporated in the document it cannot be disassociatedfrom the lease and considered separately in isolation. If adocument is inadmissible for non-registration, all its terms areinadmissible including the one dealing with the landlords permission to this tenant to sublet. It follows that the appellant cannot, in the present circumstance, be allowed to rely upon the clause in his unregistered lease deed ."

5.In view of this authoritative announcement by the Supreme Court, it is quite clear that the Appellant cannot take the benefit of Clause 5 of the lease deed dated 1st September, 1978. Consequently, there is no option but to confirm the order of the learned Rent Control Tribunal to the effect that the Appellant had sublet the premises without the written consent of his landlord and was, therefore, liable to eviction.

6.Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed but for reasons different than those given by the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.