TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ong with R.F.A. No. 384/82. We shall separately deal with R.F.A. No. 384/1982. In this order, we shall dispose of C.R.P. No. 3628/1982. 3. The learned Principal Munsiff, Bellary has held that the Central Government has not sublet the premises to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the respondent herein, without the written permission of the landlord and has accordingly dismissed the petition filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant under S. 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 4. In the Revision Petition filed by the landlord, the learned District Judge has held that there is subletting of the premises but having regard to the provisions contained in clause 4(a) of the lease deed executed by the landlord in favour of ESSO Eastern Inc. the landlord must be deemed to have waived the consent for subletting and as such the subletting has not contravened the provisions of S. 21(1)(f) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned District Judge has dismissed the revision petition. Hence this revision petition under S. 115, C.P.C. 5. Having regard to the contentions urged on both sides, the following points arise f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the leasehold right to Esso Standard Refining Co. of India Ltd., amounted to assigning the leasehold right by the tenant to M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and this act was without the consent of the landlord; therefore, it fell within the mischief of Sec, 21(1)(1) of the Act. It is also further contended that even if it is held that the transfer of ESSO to Esso Standard Refining Co. of India Ltd., is an involuntary act. by reason of the command of the statute, such an act also attracted the provisions of S. 21(1)(f) of the Act as the landlord had not consented to it. 8. The question as to whether the landlord had consented to it or not will be considered while dealing with point No. 2. As far as point No. 1 is concerned, it is necessary for us to advert to some of the provisions of the Act No. 4/1974. 9. Section 3 of the Act No. 4, 1974 transfers and vests all right, title and interest of ESSO in relation to its undertakings in India in the Central Government with effect from 13-3-1974. Section 4 states the effect of vesting. It states that the Undertakings referred to in S. 3 shall be deemed, save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) to include all asset ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case may be in respect of such property as if the lease or tenancy in relation to such property had been granted to the Central Government and thereupon all the rights under such lease or tenancy shall be deemed to have been trans ferred to and vested in the Central Govern ment. Sub-section (2) of S. 5 gives a right to the Central Government to have the lease renewed on the same terms and conditions on which the lease or tenancy was held by Esso immediately before the appointed day i.e., the date of vesting. 12. A reading of the provisions contained in Ss. 3 to 5 of the Act together leaves no doubt that by the Act of Parliament the lessee has been substituted. It is the settled legal position that a Legislature can modify, annul and substitute the contracts intra-vivos. That being so, when the Parliament in exercise of its power passes the Law by which it substitutes the parties to the lease, it cannot be held that there is assignment or transfer of the lease or subletting of the premises, by the lessee to the person or the authority in whom the leasehold rights arc vested by the law. 13. Section 7 of Act No. 4/1974 empowers the Central Government to direct the undertakin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Government is subsituted by a legislative decree. The instrument and the legal proceedings will have to be enforced and continued, as the case may be, as if the instruments were in favour of the Central Government or to which the Central Government is a party, as if the legal proceedings were instituted by or against the Central Government, as the case may he. The transfer to and vesting in, the Central Government the right, title and interest of Esso in relation to its undertakings in India is so complete that even the services of existing employees of Esso are statutorily transferred to the Central Government or Government Company, as the case may be. (See Sec. 9). From the provisions contained in S. 7, it is clear that even vesting or transferring of the right, title and interest and liabilities of the Esso transferred to and vested, in the Central Government to Esso Standard Refining Co. of India Ltd. is a legislative act. Section 7 specifically provides that right, title and interest and the liabilities of Esso in relation to its undertakings in India shall instead of continuing to vest in the Central Government, vest in the Government Company either on the da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detail the provisions relating to all matters as contained in Ss. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of Act No. 4/1974. Thus this is a case in which neither there is any assignment nor there is any sub-letting. This is a case in which the very contract of iease is modified by the law and in place of Esso, 'Hindustan Petroleum Co. Ltd.' is substituted by the law itself. Therefore, we are of the view that on a reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act together, there is no scope for accepting the contention of Sri M. R. Achar, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the act of the Central Government in transferring the properties of Esso to Esso Standard Refining Co. of India Ltd., amounts to sub-letting or assignment of the lease-hold rights. There is no act of party i.e., the tenant is involved in substituting the name of the 1st respondent either by assigning or sub-letting. It is all done by law. What attracts S. 21(1)(f) of the Act is the act of the tenant by which he unlawfully sub-lets or assigns or transfers in any manner his interest in the premises, without the consent in writing of the landlord. Therefore, there is no scope for applying S. 21(1)(f) of the Act as the requirement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese reasons therefore we are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside and the plaintiff's application under S. 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stressed on the observation that even assuming that the sa!e by the Official Liquidator was involuntary sale, then it undoubtedly became an assignment as provided in S. 14(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and contended on the basis of the aforesaid observation that even if it is construed that the transfer by the Central Government by reason of the order passed under Act No. 4 of 1974 is involuntary transfer, nevertheless, it becomes an assignment. We have already held that the provisions contained in Ss. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act No. 4/1974 read in the light of the aims, objects of the said enactment, there is no scope whatsoever for holding that there is an assignment or transfer of the lease by the tenant i.e., the Esso. It is a case of modification of the contract by substituting one of the contracting parties by the Parliament through the law enacted by it. Therefore, such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l not come within the purview of S. 10(ii)(a) of the said Act. In other words such a transfer of tenancy right on the basis of the order of the Court will be immune from the operation of the said Act and the transferee tenant will not he evicted on the ground that the original tenant transferred its right under the lease or sub-let the tenanted premises or a portion thereof. It i.s important to note in this connection the definition of tenant as given in S. 2(ix) of the said Act which provides specifically that a tenant does not include a person placed in occupation of a building by its tenant. On a plain reading of this provision it is crystal clear that any person placed in occupation of a building by the tenant cannot be deemed or considered to be a tenant in respect of the premises in which the said person is to be in possession within the meaning of the said Act. Therefore, the 2nd appellant i.e. National Ekco Radio and Engineering Co. Ltd. the transferee company who has been put in possession of the tenanted premises by the transferor tenant General Radio and Ap-relicance Co. (P.) Ltd. cannot be deemed to be tenant under this Act on the mere plea that the tenancy right includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. It also further declares that such transferee shall be deemed to be a original lessee. Thus it only alters the parties to the contracts, and it does not affect any one of the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. If by reason of alteration of the parties to the contracts, the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act are not attracted, it does not mean or it cannot be held to mean that such a consequence affects or results in nullifying the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. As long as the pith and substance of Act No. 4 of 1974 is within the legislative competence of the Parliament, incidental tren-chings here and there or such consequences, if any, will not affect the validity of the enactment in any manner. In addition to this, it is also relevant to notice that S. 11 of the Act specifically provides that the provisions of the Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act or in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority . Thus Sec. 11 of the Act No. 4 of 1974 overrides any other law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout any consent of the landlord. Thus clause 4(a) of the lease deed in principle permits the lessee to sub-let the premises to another or to give on licence to another person, without the consent of the landlord. Of course the clause also further states that such licence or sub-letting 'to any local dealer or agent'. The clause does not specify the licensee or sub-lessee. It only specifies, broad category of licensee or sub-lessee. Such broad categorisation of a licensee or sub-lessee does not in any way restrict or water down the authority given to the lessee to sub-let or give on licence the demised premises to a person who does not answer the description contained in clause 4(a) of the lease-deed, and sub-letting or giving on licence to such person does not automatically and ipso facto make the possession of the lessee or licensee illegal or opposed to the provisions of S. 23 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. Section 23 and S. 21(1)(f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act only cover the case where there is a subletting or assigning or transferring of his interest by the tenant without the consent of the landlord in writing. Here is acase wherein the lease deed execu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
