TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an order for recovery of possession under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 could be sustained against an assignee after the original tenant company had been dissolved and struck off during the pendency of the proceedings. (ii) Whether clause 7 of the lease amounted to consent in writing by the landlord to the assignment, so as to defeat eviction under Section 14(1)(b).
Issue (i): Whether an order for recovery of possession under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 could be sustained against an assignee after the original tenant company had been dissolved and struck off during the pendency of the proceedings.
Analysis: The majority held that the prohibition against eviction in Section 14(1) is lifted by the proviso in the circumstances specified therein and that clause (b) is not confined to an order against only the assigning tenant. The statutory scheme, including Sections 18 and 25, was read as contemplating proceedings and orders affecting persons other than the immediate tenant, including assignees and sub-tenants, where the premises had been parted with without written consent. The dissolution of the tenant company did not destroy the landlord's right to proceed against the assignee, and the proceeding could continue against the remaining party in possession.
Conclusion: The eviction order against the assignee was competent and valid; this issue was decided against the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether clause 7 of the lease amounted to consent in writing by the landlord to the assignment, so as to defeat eviction under Section 14(1)(b).
Analysis: The majority held that the clause merely extended the contractual meaning of "lessee" and "lessor" to heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and representatives. It did not confer an express or necessarily implied consent by the landlord to any particular assignment. The consent required by Section 14(1)(b) had to be a real consent to the transfer in question, and the clause did not satisfy that requirement.
Conclusion: There was no consent in writing to the assignment; this issue was decided against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The majority sustained the eviction order and held that the landlord was entitled to recover possession from the assignee notwithstanding the dissolution of the original tenant and notwithstanding clause 7 of the lease. The dissent took the opposite view on maintainability after dissolution.
Concurring Opinion: Bachawat, J. agreed that the appeal should be dismissed and held that the assignee could be proceeded against after the tenant company's dissolution and that the lease clause did not amount to written consent.
Dissenting Opinion: Mudholkar, J. held that once the tenant company was dissolved and could no longer be represented, the Controller's jurisdiction to proceed with the application ceased, and the landlord's application under Section 14(1)(b) should be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, an eviction proceeding for unauthorized assignment or parting with possession may continue against the assignee even if the original tenant company is dissolved, and a lease clause that only extends contractual definitions does not amount to consent in writing for the assignment.
TaxTMI 
