Skip to content


indra Perfumery Co. and ors. Vs. Moti Lal Lalu Mal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 185-D of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1969Delhi14
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 106 and 111; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14 and 15(1)
Appellantindra Perfumery Co. and ors.
RespondentMoti Lal Lalu Mal and anr.
Appellant Advocate S.N. Chopra and; Vijay Kishan, Advs
Respondent Advocate Yogeshwar Dayal, Adv.
Excerpt:
an application for eviction for non-payment of rent was filed-the owner a had rented out part of a building to b-the tenant b executed the sub-letting of part of it to c-later, c had purchased the building including the portion rented to b-since c had purchased the portion rented to b, he had stopped paying the rent to b- it was held that c was liable to pay the rent to b as the transfer of the building by a to c does nto obliterate tenancy in favor of b and continued to be landlord of c-thus c was liable to pay the rent despite the fact that he had purchased the entire building. - section 13: [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph,jj] custody of child - welfare of child vis--vis comity of courts - the minor girl child of 3 1/2 years was brought to india by her mother. the minor girl was a..........was filed for setting aside of the order of grover j. this application is nto objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents. i would accordingly vacate the order of grover j., and restore the appeal for hearing,2. this second appeal is directed against the decision of the rent control tribunal upholding the decision of the rent controller under section 15(1) of the delhi rent control act, 1958. this case has an interesting history. the premises in dispute form part of a larger building belonging to one mohd. shafi. the building is situate in gandhi market. the dispute relates to a part of the building denoted by no. 9830. this part of the building was rented out by mohd. shafi to the present respondents, moti lal and another, on the 6th of april, 1954. the agreed rent was rs......
Judgment:

1. This appeal was settled by Grover J., by his order dated 7th of February, 1966, on the basis that the same had become infructuous, the application for eviction having been dismissed. That order was passed by Grover J., at the instance of the respondents without notice to the appellants and without hearing them. In this situation, an application was filed for setting aside of the order of Grover J. This application is nto objected to by the learned counsel for the respondents. I would accordingly vacate the order of Grover J., and restore the appeal for hearing,

2. This second appeal is directed against the decision of the Rent Control Tribunal upholding the decision of the Rent Controller under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. This case has an interesting history. The premises in dispute form part of a larger building belonging to one Mohd. Shafi. The building is situate in Gandhi Market. The dispute relates to a part of the building denoted by No. 9830. This part of the building was rented out by Mohd. Shafi to the present respondents, Moti Lal and another, on the 6th of April, 1954. The agreed rent was Rs. 436 per mensem. On the 3rd of November, 1956, a part of the rented premises was rented out by the respondents to the appellants Messrs Indra Perfumery Company. There are three partners of this company, namely, Nanak Chand and others. The rent agreed to being Rs. 115 per mensem. The appellant-company purchased the building including the rented portion No. 9830 from Mohd. Shafi. By reason of this purchase the appellants did nto pay the agreed rent of the tenanted premises to the respondents, with the result that the respondents filed an application under Section 14 for eviction of the appellants for non-payment of rent. This application was contested by the appellants on the plea that they had become owners of the tenanted premises by reason of the purchase and, thereforee, the tenancy had come to an end. This contention was controverter by the respondents. The Rent Controller rejected the appellants contention and passed an order under Section 15 of the Act. An appeal by the appellants to the Rent Control Tribunal met with no success. It is in this situation that the present second appeal has been preferred.

3. It is no doubt true that a question of law does arise, but I am extremely doubtful if that question of law is a substantial question of law. Anyhow, I have thought it fit to determine the question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. His contention is that by reason of the application of the doctrine of merger, the tenancy in his favor has merged into the higher right, which he has acquired by purchase, namely, the ownership right. It is a fundamental principle of law that a lesser estate merges in a larger estate provided there is no intervening estate between the two. The learned counsel's contention is that the tenancy by the previous owner in favor of the respondents is nto an intervening estate so far as the appellants are concerned. In my opinion, this contention is nto sound. Vis-a-vis the appellants the respondents are the landlords. The transfer by the previous owner to the appellants does nto wipe out the tenancy in favor of the respondents. I can see no reason how one single indivisible tenancy can be partly wiped out. If I were to give effect to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be in a way wiping out a part of the indivisible tenancy, a result which cannto be countenanced in law. After giving my careful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Courts below.

4. I am also told that the eviction application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller because the order under Section 15 has been complied with. I may mention that to me the entire controversy appears to be fruitless, because so far as the appellants are concerned, the only ground on which they can be evicted is non-payment of rent and that ground, in the circumstances of this case, can hardly arise.

5. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.

RSK/D.V.C.

6. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //