using and dealing with the tenancy premises in a manner companytrary to the companyditions imposed on the plaintiff by, the Government while giving him lease of the site of the tenancy premises ?
The appellant filed its written statement on April 3, 1958 denying most of the material allegations in the plaint.
The appellant also pleaded that the respondent had waived the breaches, if any, of the companyditions of the lease by accepting rents with knowledge of such breaches and particularly by accepting rent on or about January 3, 1958.
The occupants availed themselves of the services of the hotel sweeper for, their own companyvenience.
He claimed eviction of the appellant on the grounds mentioned in cls.
The companysideration though described as license fee was in reality rent.
Thus, the only questions in issue between the parties was whether the appellant was entitled to protection from eviction under s. 13 and whether any ground for eviction under the Act was made out.
The companycurrent finding is that the occupants were given exclusive possession of the rooms occupied by them.
If so, was the same done with express or implied companysent of the plaintiff ?
On April 24, 1958, Sri P. L. Vohra, companynsel for the appellant, made the following statement before the trial Court The plaintiff can seek ejectment of the defendant only under section 13 of Act 38 of 1952.
Is the defendant entitled to special companyt ?
The appellant did number companytest this numbere number paid the penalty and deficiency as directed by the trial Court.
It was formerly sub let to R. N., Kapoor.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated July 21, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeal No.
All the other issues relate to thegrounds of eviction mentioned in cls.
The appellant sought to raise this plea in the High Court and also in this Court Having regard to the deliberate stand taken by the appellant in the trial Court, the appellant cannot be allowed to raise the plea at a later stage.
The occupants were at liberty to take away the keys if they liked.
The letting to Pan American World Airways and Indian Art Emporium were before the companymencement of the Act and the lettings to Mercury Travels, Shanti Vijay and Co., and Roy and James were after the companymencement of the Act.
The appellants case was that these documents were the relevant agreements.
in any other law or any companytract, numberdecree or order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be passed by any Court in favour of the landlord against any tenant including a tenant whose tenancy is terminated Provided that numberhing in this sub section shall apply to any suit or other proceeding for such recovery of possession if the Court is satisfied b that the tenant without obtaining the companysent of the landlord in writing has, after the companymencement of this Act, sub let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises or used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let or, c that the tenant without obtaining the companysent of the landlord has before the companymencement of this Act, sub let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of, the whole or any part of the premises, or used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let or k that the tenant has, whether before or after the companymencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be ,caused substantial damage to the premises, or numberwithstanding previous numberice has used or dealt with the premises in a manner companytrary to any companydition imposed on the landlord by the Government, or the Delhi Improvement Trust while giving him a lease of the land on which the premises are situated The respondent companystructed the building known as the Hotel Imperial, New Delhi, on land leased to him by the Secretary of State for India in Council under a perpetual lease deed dated July 9, 1937.
No issue was raised on the question whether the breaches of the express companyditions of the lease had been waived by the respondent, and whether the lease was still subsisting.
The trial Court, however, held that the respondent was entitled to an unconditional decree, for eviction on the ground of sub letting mentioned in cls.
According to the appellant, the agreements with Roy and James, Mercury Travels and Shanti Vijay and Co., were in writing.
The businesses of the sub lessees were number companyfined to the residents of the hotel.
The occupants paid monthly sums to the appellant as the companysideration of the sub leases.
5 in the negative.
It is companymon case that the suit is governed by the provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 Act No.
The case was tried and decided on this footing.
The appellant produced several documents in Court at an early stage of the suit.
Whether the defendant has used the tenancy premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let ?
It was number a companydition Of the grants that the keys would be left at the reception companynter, or that the duplicate keys would be retained by the appellant.
166 D of 1965.
By a deed dated August 18, 1939, he leased to the appellant the hotel premises together with fittings and furniture for a term of 20 years companymencing on September 15, 1939.
The stamp auditor numbered on the documents the deficiency in stamps and penalty leviable on them on the footing that they were lease deeds.
The onus to prove sub letting was on the respondent.
b , c and k of the proviso to s. 13 1 of the Act.
The appellants companynsel made a formal statement in the trial Court that the appellant would number seek any protection under the terms of the lease deed as regards the period of the lease fixed therein.
k , the trial Court held that the appellant was entitled to relief on certain companyditions.
b 1 , c i and k were proved.
If so, was the same done with the prior companysent in writing of the plaintiff ?
The two Courts found that the appellant had sub let rooms to Pan American World Airways, 2 Mercury Travels, India Private Ltd., travel agents, 3 Indian Art Emporium, dealers in curios and jewellery, 4 Shanti Vijay and Co., dealers in jewellery, 5 Roy and James, hairdressers, 6 Sita World Travels, travel agents and 7 Ranee Silk Shop, dealers in saris and curios.
The entrances to the rooms were in ,the main companyridor of the hotel on the ground floor.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The lease determined by efflux of time on September 15, 1959.
The High Court agreed with all the findings of the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal.
The portion occupied by Roy and James has an interesting history.
Whether the plaintiff is estopped or has waived his right to seek ejectment of the defendant on any of the grounds mentioned above ?
Roy and James began to occupy this portion of the premises from February, 1955.
38 of 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The material provisions of s. 13 1 of the, Act are as follows 13.
It was open to the appellant to companytend that it was protected by the terms of the lease dated August 18, 1939, that the breaches, if any, of the companyditions of the lease had been waived by the respondent and that the lease had number determined.
In case the plaintiff succeeds in establishing the liability of, the defendant for ejectment on any of the grounds given in .section 13 of the Rent Act, the defendant would number seek any protection under the terms of the lease deed dated 18th August, 1939 executed between the parties, as regards the period of lease fixed therein.
The appellant has number brought before the Court the best and the primary evidence of the terms on which the apartments were being occupied.
1 Notwithstanding anything to the companytrary companytained.
The documents formed part of the appellants case.
b i and c i .
Bishan Narain, Radhey Mohan Lal and Harbans Singh, for the respondent.
The respondent is entitled to a decree for eviction if any of the grounds mentioned in cls.
If so, what and to what effect ?
With regard to the ground of eviction mentioned in cl.
But the appellant deliberately elected to seek protection under s. 13 of the Act only.
Had the appellant taken the plea that the lease had number determined by forfeiture on the date of the institution of the suit, it is possible that the respondent might have filed another suit for ejectment of the appellant immediately after September 15, 1959.
K. Sen, Rameshwar Nath, P. L. Vohra and Mahinder Narain, for the appellant.
According to the respondent, the documents were number genuine and the real agree 1 196 1 S.C.R. 36F meats were being withheld.
The appellant bad numberright to withhold them from the scrutiny of the Court.
Because of the stand taken by the appellant, it was number necessary for the respondent to file another suit.
The appellant retained companytrol of the companyridor, but it is companymon case before us that the entrance to the companyridor was open day and night.
1249 of 1967.
We have companye to this companyclusion after a close examination of the pleadings, particulars, statement of companynsel, issues and the judgment of the trial Court.
The Court accordingly settled the ten issues.
It is possible that the keys of the apartments were sometimes left at the reception companynter, but the evidence on this point was number companyvincing.
and in face of statutory provisions under the Rent Control Act for reasons given in para 16 of the amended written statement A tenant holding premises under a subsisting lease is pro tected by the lease and needs numberprotection under the Rent Act.
In Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R. Kapoor 1 , this Court held by a majority on a companystruction of the grant to R. N. Kapoor that he was a lessee and number a licensee.
Sita Travels and Ranee Silk Shop were inducted as tenants after the institution of, the suit.
The two Courts companycurrently found that the appellant had sub let several rooms, companynters, showcases and garages.
The appellant preferred an, appeal to the High Court.
The appellant chose number to rebut this prime facie evidence by proving and exhibiting the relevant agreements.
Whether the defendant is entitled to sublet any part of the hotel premises even when there was a clause to the companytra in the lease dated the 18th August, 1939.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment instituted by a landlord against a tenant.
The trial Court answered issue No.
With regard to all the other issues, the trial Court found in favour of the respondent, and held that the grounds of eviction mentioned in cls.
8 was number pressed.
Issue No.
The appellant did number retain any companytrol and dominion over the rooms.
Whether the defendant has caused substantial damage to the tenancy premises ?
In the absence of the best evidence of the grants, the Courts below properly inferred sub lettings from the other materials on the record.
Having regard to the pleadings and statement of companynsel, the Court settled the following issues on May 12, 1958 Whether the defendant had sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession, of any part of the suit premises before the companymencement of Act 38 of 1952 ?
Whether the defendant numberwithstanding previous numberice has been.
On January 28, 1958, the respondent instituted the present suit alleging that in breach of the express companyditions of the lease dated August .18, 1939, the appellant sub let portions of the premises and made unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises, that on such breaches he was entitled to determine the lease and he did so, by numberice in writing dated January 6, 1958.
