TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (4) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roller in pursuance of a decree dated 31- 7-1961 passed against the 1st respondent. The case had a rather chequered career having passed through several phases. To begin with the landlord-appellant executed a lease in respect of the disputed premises in favour of Respondent No. 2 for three years as far back as 1.4.1942. In 1948, a suit was brought by the appellant for eviction of the tenant for non-payment of rent on the ground of conversion of the user of the premises. The suit for possession was however dismissed but a decree dated 31. 11. 1948 for arrears of rent was passed and it was held that Laxmi Bank was the real tenant. Subsequently, the Bombay High Court ordered the Bank to be wound up and in the winding up proceedings, the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the order of the Rent Control Tribunal and restored the order of the Rent Controller, hence this appeal by special leave. Mr. Mridul appearing for the appellant challenged before us the findings of the High Court on point nos. 1 & 3 which are formulated at page 91 of the judgment of the Delhi High Court. These points may be extracted thus:- "(1) The application made by the appellant before the High Court under section 25 was not barred by reason of the dismissal of the appellants suit for default of appearance under Order IX Rule 9, C.P.C. (3) The transfer to the appellant by the Official Liquidator of the tenancy rights being voluntary did not come within the mischief of secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by it would be rendered meaningless if the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed for de fault had only to transfer the property to another and the latter was able to agitate rights which his vendor was precluded by law from putting forward." In the instant case it was appellant who brought the previous suit which resulted in a decree for eviction of the tenant on 31-7-1961-a date when the 1st respondent had already taken possession of the premises by virtue of transfer made by the Official Liquidator. Thus the identity of the subject matter being substantially the same, this case clearly falls within the ambit of the ratio in the case supra. On this ground alone therefore the appellant is entitled to succeed because the High Court with d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r by s. 14(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. S. 14(b) runs thus:- "14(b)-that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises with out obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord." The language of s. 14(b) is wide enough not only to include any sub-lease but even an assignment or any other mode by which possession of the tenanted premises is parted. In view of the wide amplitude of s.14(b) we are clearly of the opinion that it does not exclude even an involuntary sale. Fore these reasons therefore we are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment and decree of the High Co....