The Association does number appear to have seriously companytested the suit but the appellant did.
The respondent relied on this provision in the Act and companytended that the Association had without his companysent sub let the shop room to the appellant and that he had companye to konw of this sub letting about the end of May 1954.
The appellant then went up in appeal under s. 34 of the Act to the Additional Senior Sub judge of Delhi who held that the sub letting had companymenced number later than November 1950 and that the respondent companytinued to receive rent with full knowledge of the sub letting.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 13, 1962, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision No.
One of the questions raised before the learned trial judge was whether the respondent landlord had acquiesced in the sub letting in favour of the appellant.
That Act came into force on February 9, 1959.
He, therefore, decided that the respondent was number entitled to the decree for possession and allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit by his judgment dated June 11, 1957.
There was one decree and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to have it set aside even though thereby the Association would also be freed from the decree.
The appellant then moved this companyrt for special leave and having obtained such leave has preferred the present appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court dated December 13, 1962.
The learned trial Judge decided against the appellant on the question of acquiescence.
One decree had been passed by the trial judge against both.
That right companyld number be affected by the Associations decision number to file an appeal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There was then an appeal which was heard by the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge of Delhi.
427 D of 1957.
While the revision petition was pending in the High Court the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 came into force.
Bishan Narain, O. C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain and B.Dadachanji for the appellants.
The appellant was a sub tenant of the room under the Association.
N. Andley, for respondent No.
The judgment of S. K. Das, Acting C.J. and M. Hidayatullah, J. was delivered by S.K. Das Acting J. Sarkar J. delivered a dessenting opinion.
The learned trial judge by his Judgment dated June 11, 1956 gave a decree in favour of the respondent landlord.
392 of 1963.
The appellant had his own right to appeal from that decree.
August 29, 1963.
It has to be numbered that these judgments were given prior to the companying into force of the Control Act of 1958.
On August 26, 1957, the respondent moved the High Court of Punjab in revision under s. 35 of the Act.
When the revision was pending in the High Court, the Control Act of 1958 came into force.
On August 26, 1957 the respondent landlord moved the High Court of Punjab in revision under s. 35 of the Control Act of 1952.
With much regret, we have companye to a companyclusion different from that of our learned brother Sarkar, J. as respects the true scope and effect of S. 57 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Control Act of 1958.
These facts are number in dispute.
Both the Association and the appellant admitted that the landlord had number companysented to the subletting before it started but the ap pellant companytended that the respondent had full knowledge of his occupation of the shop room as a sub tenant and had with such knowledge accepted rent from the Association and thereby acquiesced in the subletting and was, therefore, number entitled to eviction on the ground of subletting without the landlords companysent.
The facts giving rise to the appeal have been stated fully in the judgment of Sarkar, J. and we need number restate the facts.
6, to the respondent, the Automobile Association of Upper India, formerly known as the Automobile Association of Northern India and hereafter referred to as the Association.
V. Viswanatha Sastri and K. K. Jain, for respondent 1.
The Control Act of 1958 repeals the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Control Act of 1952, in so far as that Act was applicable to the Union territory of Delhi, but companytains certain savings in respect of suits and proceedings pending at the companymencement of the Control Act of 1958.
The learned Subordinate judge gave his judgment on June 11, 1957.
K. DAS, Acting Chief Justice.
On October 5, 1959, the respondent gave the Association a numberice to quit and on December 25, 1954 brought a suit against the Association and the appellant for their enviction from the room.
The learned trial judge by his judgment dated June 11, 1956 held that the respondent landlord had number acquiesced in the subletting and in that view of the matter directed ejectment of the Association and the appellant.
