9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether Vishwa Nath sublet, assigned, or parted with possession of the premises to the company Interads Advertising (P.) Limited. 2. Whether the amendment to the written statement should have been allowed. 3. Whether Vishwa Nath was entitled to the use of the bathroom under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Subletting, Assignment, or Parting with Possession: The primary issue was whether Vishwa Nath sublet, assigned, or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to Interads Advertising (P.) Limited without the landlord's written consent, as prohibited under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The facts established that Vishwa Nath took the premises on rent in his own name in 1962 and later formed a company in 1964, which started paying the rent. The landlords alleged that this constituted subletting. However, the court found that Vishwa Nath retained legal possession and control over the premises, as he was the managing director and had a controlling interest in the company. The court held that mere user by the company did not amount to parting with possession since Vishwa Nath did not divest himself of the right to possession. The court cited precedents like Chaplin v. Smith (1926) 1 Kb 198, which established that allowing a company to use the premises while retaining legal possession does not constitute parting with possession. 2. Amendment to the Written Statement: The appellants sought to amend their written statement to reflect that Vishwa Nath was the tenant and not the company, which was consistent with the evidence presented. The tribunal dismissed the application for amendment, considering it mala fide and introducing a new case. However, the court found that the amendment was necessary to reflect the true state of affairs and prevent miscarriage of justice. The court emphasized that courts exist to do justice and should not punish litigants for procedural mistakes. The amendment was in line with the findings that Vishwa Nath was the tenant, and the tribunal should have allowed it. 3. Use of the Bathroom under Section 45: The company filed an application under Section 45 of the Act, alleging deprivation of an essential amenity (use of the bathroom). The rent controller and the tribunal found that the bathroom was not included in the tenancy and that there was no deprivation of an essential amenity. The court confirmed this finding, noting it as a finding of fact that could not be disturbed in a second appeal. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the order of ejectment was set aside. The court concluded that Vishwa Nath was the tenant, retained possession, and did not sublet or part with possession to the company. The application under Section 45 was dismissed, confirming that the tenant was not entitled to the use of the bathroom. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout.
|
