Rajinder Singh Vs. Dalip Chand [1994] INSC 126 (17 February 1994)
Mohan, S. (J) Mohan, S. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J)
CITATION: 1995 SCC (1) 759
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1. Substitution application is allowed.
2. Delay condoned.
3. After hearing both the learned counsel at some length, we are of the firm view that the judgment of the High Court is unsupportable in law. The short question that arose for determination and which still requires to be determined is where a contractual tenancy comes to an end by efflux of time, if under the contract, the tenant had a permission to sub-lease whether that permission will enure after the expiry of the lease. The High Court has answered in the affirmative disregarding the basic principles :
(1) After the contract had come to an end, the statute acts over the rights of the parties are governed by the statute of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in the instant case.
(2) It is settled law that the Rent Control Act is a code in itself. It is equally well-settled that to the extent that the Rent Control Act governs the provisions of Transfer of Property Act will not apply. Further Section 13 of the Act states as follows :
"13. (3)(a) A landlord may apply to the Controller for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession."
4.Therefore, if sub-lease is a ground for eviction the prior permission granted under the contract, which contract had expired, cannot be pressed into service. The High Court by holding to the contrary has gone wrong. The civil appeal will stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Time to vacate the premises is three months.
