1967 (12) TMI 66 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sub-letting of premises before and after the commencement of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.
2. Use of premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let.
3. Substantial damage to the premises.
4. Dealing with the premises contrary to conditions imposed by the Government.
5. Waiver of the landlord's right to seek ejectment.
6. Entitlement to special costs.
7. Validity of sub-letting under the terms of the lease and statutory provisions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Sub-letting of premises before and after the commencement of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952:
The appellant sub-let various portions of the hotel premises to different entities both before and after the commencement of the Act. The trial Court and the High Court found that the appellant had sub-let rooms to entities such as Pan American World Airways, Mercury Travels, and others. The courts concluded that these sub-lettings were done without the written consent of the landlord, violating clauses (b)(i) and (c)(i) of the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Act.

2. Use of premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let:
The trial Court answered this issue in the negative, finding no evidence that the appellant used the premises for a purpose other than running a hotel as specified in the lease.

3. Substantial damage to the premises:
The trial Court found that the appellant had caused substantial damage to the premises. However, the Supreme Court did not express an opinion on this finding, leaving the question open.

4. Dealing with the premises contrary to conditions imposed by the Government:
Clause 2(v) of the head lease required the respondent to obtain written consent from the Chief Commissioner before erecting any new buildings. The appellant made several unauthorized constructions, including a room let to Shanti Vijay and Co., without obtaining the requisite consent. This was found to be in contravention of clause (k) of the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Act.

5. Waiver of the landlord's right to seek ejectment:
The appellant argued that the respondent had waived his right to seek ejectment by accepting rent with knowledge of the sub-lettings. The courts found no evidence of such waiver, stating that waiver requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right, which was not proven in this case.

6. Entitlement to special costs:
Issue No. 8 regarding special costs was not pressed by the appellant, and thus, it was not considered by the courts.

7. Validity of sub-letting under the terms of the lease and statutory provisions:
The appellant contended that the lease deed impliedly consented to sub-letting for running a first-class hotel. However, the courts found this argument untenable, as Clause 21 of the lease explicitly prohibited sub-letting without written consent. The courts also rejected the argument that the respondent had given implied consent through correspondence with the Land Development Officer.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the trial Court and the High Court, concluding that the respondent was entitled to a decree for eviction on the grounds of sub-letting and unauthorized construction. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the execution of the decree was stayed for six months to allow the appellant to vacate the premises.