9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The admitted facts are that the premises in question was demised to Cox & Kings (AGENTS) Limited, a company incorporated under the United Kingdom Companies Act [for short, "Foreign Company"], tenant of Smt. Jagdish Rani Sethi who subsequently sold the property to Smt. Chander Malhotra by a registered conveyance. Mrs. Rani Sethi had filed eviction petition on diverse grounds. Smt. Chander Malhotra, the respondent, after getting impleaded, amended the patition and also pleaded sub-letting to the appellant, an Indian Company. The Rent Controller found that premises had been sub-let by the Foreing Company and, therefore, ordered eviction. That was confirmed in appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and thus is not a case of "sub-letting" within the meaning if Section 14(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the view taken by the court below is not correct in law. We find it difficult to give acceptance to the contention. It is true that under Section 29 of the FERA, without prejudice to the provisions of Section 28 and Section 47 and notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of the Act or the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, a person residing outside India (whether a citizen of India or not) or a person who is not a citizen of India but a is resident in India, or a Company (other than a Banking Company) which is not incorporated under any law in force in force in India or in which the non-resident interest is m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning of Section 14(1) (b) of the Act? It is seen that under FERA, there is no compulsion that the premises demised to the Coreign Company should be continued or given to Indian Company. On the other hand, the conveyance executed between the Foreign Company and the Indian Company reads as under. " An agreement was executed was executed on July 4, 1980 between the English Company. The English Company is termed as Assignor and Indian Company has been termed as Assignee. The last part of the preamble indicates that whereas the assignor has agreed to assign and the assignee has agreed to take over for consideration and upon the terms and conditions here in after set out the business carried on by the assignor in India hereinabove recited a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bservance of the leasehold covenants contained in the lease held by the Foreing Company. The question, therefore, is: whether it is a sub-letting or assignment? It is seen that sub-section (b) of Section 14, in clear terms envisages that the tenant shall not, after June 9, 1952, sub-let, assign, or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises, without obtaining the written consent of the landlord. It is seen that though by operation of FERA the Foreign company had wound up its business, it assigned, under the agreement, the leasehold interest in the demised premises to the Indian Company which is carrying on the same business in the tenanted premises without obtaining the written consent of the landlord. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned has not been extracted and we are not in a position to know what the actual language of the Section of the Bengali Act. Secondly, in our opinion, the official liquidator had merely stepped into the shoes of Laxmi Bank which was the original tenant and even if the official liquidator had transferred the tenancy interest to respondent No.2 under the orders of the Court, it was on behalf of the original tenant. It was undoubtedly a voluntary sale which clearly fell within the mischief of Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent control Act. Assuming that the sale by the official Liquidator was an involuntary sale, then it undoubtedly become an assignment as provided for by s.14(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. S.14(b) runs thus:- "14(b)-- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it cannot be said that there was no transfer of the right of the former company under the lease to the latter company. On such transfer, the tenant is liable to be evicted as a sub- tenant. The above judgment is clearly on the point in issue before us. In General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. v. M.A.. Khader (dead) by Lrs. [(1986) 2 SCR 607 at 620] a three- Judge Bench had approved the above ratio. Two companies having been amalgamated, eviction against the amalgamated company came to be filed. On consideration of all the decisions referred to above hereinbefore, the irresistible conclusion followed that there had been a transfer of the tenancy interest of appellant No.1 in respect of the premises in question to the appellant No.2, subsequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
