Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a landlord's suit for eviction of a tenant from a shop room in Pratap Buildings, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises to another without the landlord's consent, relying on clause (c)(i) of the proviso to Section 13(1) of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. The trial court decreed eviction, finding no acquiescence by the landlord. On appeal, the Additional Senior Subordinate Judge reversed the decree, holding that subletting had commenced not later than November 1950 and that the landlord had continued to receive rent with full knowledge, thus acquiescing in the subletting. The landlord then filed a revision petition before the Punjab High Court under Section 35 of the 1952 Act. While the revision was pending, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 came into force, repealing the 1952 Act. The High Court held that under Section 57(2) of the 1958 Act, the pending revision had to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the 1952 Act; it further found that there was no evidence to support the lower appellate court's finding of acquiescence and accordingly allowed the revision, restoring the trial court's eviction decree. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The main legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court could interfere in revision with a finding of fact on the ground of no evidence, whether the appeal before the lower appellate court was maintainable without an appeal by the co-tenant, and whether Section 57 of the 1958 Act required the pending eviction proceeding to be governed by the new Act or the old Act. The appellant argued that the High Court lacked revisional power to set aside the finding of acquiescence and that the first proviso to Section 57(2) made all provisions of the 1958 Act applicable to pending proceedings, which would bar eviction because the subletting occurred before June 9, 1952 and thus fell outside Section 14(1)(b) of the 1958 Act. The landlord contended that the High Court properly interfered on the no-evidence ground and that Section 57(2) preserved the old Act for pending proceedings. The majority of the Supreme Court, speaking through S.K. Das, Acting C.J., agreed with the High Court's conclusion on the no-evidence point and held that under Section 35 of the 1952 Act, a finding based on no evidence could be set aside as not being according to law. On the interpretation of Section 57, the majority held that the first proviso to Section 57(2) did not require the entire new Act to be applied retrospectively to pending proceedings; it only required the court to have regard to the provisions of the new Act where they slightly modified or clarified the old provisions, but not where entirely new rights and liabilities were created. Therefore, the old Act continued to govern the eviction suit, and the landlord was entitled to rely on Section 13(1)(c)(i) of the 1952 Act. Sarkar J. dissented, taking the view that the expression 'shall have regard to the provisions of this Act' gave retrospective operation to all provisions of the 1958 Act, which would bar the eviction. The majority decision prevailed, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's order and restoring the trial court's eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control and Eviction - Subletting Without Consent - Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, Section 13(1) Proviso clause (c)(i) - Landlord entitled to evict tenant who sublet premises before commencement of Act without consent, unless landlord acquiesced in subletting - Trial court decreed eviction, appellate court reversed on ground of acquiescence, Supreme Court majority held no evidence supported acquiescence and restored eviction decree - Held that landlord could rely on exception for pre-1952 subletting under old Act (No paragraph numbers available). B) Rent Control - Revisional Jurisdiction - Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, Section 35 - High Court could interfere in revision with lower appellate finding on acquiescence if based on no evidence, as such finding not 'according to law' - Held that no evidence standard permits revisional interference (No paragraph numbers available). C) Statutory Interpretation - Repeal and Savings - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 57 - Pending proceedings under repealed 1952 Act to be disposed under old Act; first proviso requires court to have regard to new Act only to apply modifications and clarifications, not entirely new rights - Majority held first proviso does not retrospectively apply all provisions of 1958 Act; old Act governed eviction suit; Sarkar J. dissented on this point - Held that suit governed by 1952 Act, not 1958 Act (No paragraph numbers available).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could interfere in revision with a finding of acquiescence on ground of no evidence; whether Section 57 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 required pending eviction proceedings to be governed by the new Act or the old Act; and whether the landlord could rely on Section 13(1)(c)(i) of Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952 for eviction on ground of subletting without consent.
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed appeal, upheld High Court order, and restored trial court's decree for eviction of appellant from room no. 6, Pratap Buildings, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Majority held that suit governed by 1952 Act and landlord entitled to eviction; Sarkar J. dissented on interpretation of Section 57.
Law Points
- Pending proceedings under repealed 1952 Act continue under old Act
- first proviso to Section 57(2) of 1958 Act only requires court to have regard to new Act for modifications and clarifications
- not entirely new rights
- High Court can interfere under Section 35 of 1952 Act if finding is based on no evidence
- subletting without consent under Section 13(1)(c)(i) of 1952 Act entitles landlord to eviction unless acquiescence proved.
