9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... victed as it was established on record that the premises had been sublet by the petitioner in contravention of the prohibitory provisions of the Act. 2. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the Rent Controller in an appeal filed before the Rent Control Tribunal which was allowed on 3rd march, 1978 and the eviction order was set aside. The respondent-landlord approached the Delhi High Court in second appeal (SAO No. 217 of 1978) which was allowed on 26th September, 1994 and the case was remanded to the Tribunal to re-hear the appeal. The Rent Control Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by judgment dated 7.7.1997 and the finding recorded earlier by the Addl. Rent Controller that the premises had been sublet was upheld. The pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court drew an inference that the transaction must have been entered into for monetary consideration. This decision has since been followed in many cases, as for example, United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (p) Ltd., AIR1995SC380 , upon which, as we shall presently see, reliance has been placed by the petitioner also. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to a decision of this Court in Delhi Stationers Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, AIR1990SC1208 , where the tenant was found to have allowed his relative (brother-in-law) to live with him and to use his kitchen and latrine. This was not treated as subletting or parting with possession. Consequently, it is of no aid to petitioner. 7. The case of Jagan Nath v. Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in United Bank of India v. Cooks and Kelvey Properties (P.) Limited, AIR1995SC380 , in which it was indicated that the meaning of transfer of a right to enjoy the property for consideration envisaged under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, postulates that a tenant who transfers of assigns his right in the tenancy or any part thereof in whole or in part held by him without the previous consent in writing creates a sub tenancy. This case also does not help the petitioner as it was found as a fact that although the bank (appellant) had inducted the trade union into the premises, the bank had not received any monetary consideration and the union was only permitted to use the property for its trade union activities. It was also found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
