ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LTD., DELHI versus S. B. SARDAR RANJIT SINGH

ASSOCIATED HOTELS OF INDIA LTD., DELHI versus S. B. SARDAR RANJIT SINGH

Sub-letting of hotel rooms by tenant without landlord's written consent constitutes grounds for eviction under s. 13(1) proviso (b) and (c) Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. Waiver not established; lease conditions breached. Exclusive possession and valuable consideration proved sub-letting; respondent...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Associated Hotels of India Ltd.; Respondent: Ranjit Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sub Letting, Eviction, Waiver of Consent, Lease Conditions, Hotel Premises Under Rent Control Act
Property Law Landlord Tenant Rent Control Sub Letting Eviction Waiver of Consent Lease Conditions Hotel Premises Under Rent Control Act

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Associated Hotels of India Ltd.

Appellant

Ranjit Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenant had sub-let parts of hotel premises in contravention of lease and Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952.
  2. 2 Whether sub-letting occurred without written consent of landlord under s. 13(1) proviso (b) and (c).
  3. 3 Whether respondent waived his right to seek eviction by accepting rent with knowledge of breaches.

Ratio Decidendi

Sub-letting of hotel rooms by tenant without landlord's written consent constitutes grounds for eviction under s. 13(1) proviso (b) and (c) Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. Waiver not established; lease conditions breached. Exclusive possession and valuable consideration proved sub-letting; respondent discharged onus of proof.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decree for eviction of appellant affirmed
  • Execution of decree stayed for six months