9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of lease agreement clause regarding subletting without landlord's consent. 2. Consideration of unregistered lease deed in eviction proceedings. 3. Determining if the sub-tenant qualifies as an 'associate concern.' 4. Relevance of landlord's general consent in lease agreement. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a tenant, appealed against an eviction decree based on subletting without the landlord's consent. The lease agreement contained a clause restricting subletting without permission. The appellant argued that the sub-tenant was an 'associate concern' due to being a distributor of the appellant's products. However, the courts ruled the subletting was unauthorized, leading to eviction. 2. The appellant relied on the lease agreement clause, despite the deed being unregistered, invoking S. 49 of the Registration Act for 'collateral purpose.' The courts, however, held that the clause's admissibility is tied to the registration requirement, rendering it inadmissible in the absence of registration. 3. The appellant contended that the sub-tenant qualified as an 'associate concern' under the lease clause. The courts found that the sub-tenant's status as a distributor did not equate to being an 'associate concern' as per the lease terms, leading to the eviction order. 4. The lease agreement's general consent clause was examined in light of the subletting to the specific sub-tenant. The courts emphasized the need for specific written consent for subletting under the Delhi Rent Control Act, emphasizing that general consent does not suffice. As the consent was not specific to the subletting in question, the appellant's reliance on the clause was deemed insufficient for defense, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.
|
