1965 (4) TMI 112 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order for recovery of possession against the appellant after the dissolution of the original tenant company.
2. Interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
3. Consent for assignment under the lease agreement.
4. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to make an eviction order in the absence of the original tenant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order for Recovery of Possession Against the Appellant After the Dissolution of the Original Tenant Company:

The main contention was whether the order for recovery of possession made against the appellant after the original tenant company, Allen Berry & Co., had ceased to exist, was competent. The majority opinion held that the proceedings could continue against the assignee alone, even after the dissolution of the original tenant. It was observed that the object of the statute was to enable the landlord to recover possession in specified cases, and this intention should be given effect unless the language used made it plainly impossible. The dissenting opinion, however, argued that the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to make an order or decree for recovery of possession against a tenant ceases to be exercisable once the tenant is dissolved and struck off the record.

2. Interpretation of Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958:

The interpretation of Section 14(1) was crucial. The appellant argued that the term "tenant" in clause (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 referred only to the tenant who assigned the tenancy and not to the assignee. The majority opinion rejected this argument, stating that the proviso was intended to lift the ban on recovery of possession in specified cases and did not limit the persons against whom the order could be made. It was held that the statute contemplated orders for recovery of possession against both the assigning tenant and the assignee. The dissenting opinion, however, held that the tenant must be a party to the proceeding right up to the date of the order, and the dissolution of the tenant company created a lacuna that the court could not fill.

3. Consent for Assignment Under the Lease Agreement:

The appellant contended that the lease agreement included a clause that implied the landlord's consent to the assignment. The relevant clause stated that the expression "The Lessee" shall include their representatives and assigns. The majority opinion held that this clause did not amount to the required consent in writing for the assignment. It was emphasized that the consent contemplated by Section 14(1)(b) was a direct consent to a contemplated assignment to a particular assignee, and the clause in question did not meet this requirement.

4. Jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to Make an Eviction Order in the Absence of the Original Tenant:

The appellant argued that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to make the order for possession in the absence of the original tenant. The majority opinion dismissed this argument, stating that both the tenant and the assignee were properly parties to the proceedings, and the dissolution of the tenant did not affect the jurisdiction to make the order against the assignee. The dissenting opinion, however, held that the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to make an order for recovery of possession against a tenant ceases once the tenant is dissolved and no longer a party to the proceedings.

Conclusion:

In accordance with the majority opinion, the appeal was dismissed with costs. The appellant was given a month's time to vacate the premises. The judgment emphasized the legislative intent behind the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and upheld the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to make an eviction order against the assignee in the absence of the original tenant.