DULI CHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus JAGMENDER DASS

DULI CHAND (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus JAGMENDER DASS

Under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, eviction is justified where tenant has parted with possession or sub-let premises without written consent of landlord. Mere permission or acquiescence, or alleged waiver, does not suffice. Tenant had parted with legal possession to Sri Bhagwan; no written consent was proved, and statutory requirement could not be waived. Eviction order affirmed.

Parties
Appellant: Duli Chand (dead) by L.Rs.; Respondent: Jagmender Dass
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 December 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision, Appeal From Delhi High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sub Letting, Parting With Possession, Consent in Writing, Eviction Under Delhi Rent Control Act 1958
Tenancy Property Law Sub Letting Parting With Possession Consent in Writing Eviction Under Delhi Rent Control Act 1958

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Duli Chand (dead) by L.Rs.

Appellant

Jagmender Dass

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision, Appeal From Delhi High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenant parted with possession of the rented premises?
  2. 2 Whether written consent from landlord required for sub-letting/parting with possession under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(b)?
  3. 3 Whether landlord waived right to eviction by acquiescence or permission?

Ratio Decidendi

Under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, eviction is justified where tenant has parted with possession or sub-let premises without written consent of landlord. Mere permission or acquiescence, or alleged waiver, does not suffice. Tenant had parted with legal possession to Sri Bhagwan; no written consent was proved, and statutory requirement could not be waived. Eviction order affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • No grounds found to interfere with lower courts' decisions