MUNSHI LAL versus SMT. SANTOSH & ORS.

MUNSHI LAL versus SMT. SANTOSH & ORS.

Occupation of the tenanted shop by the son-in-law amounts to sub-letting within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) read with Section 14(4), as there was exclusive possession and no written consent from the landlord.

Parties
Appellant: Munshi Lal; Respondent: Smt. Santosh & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; eviction ordered.
Legal Topics
Sub Letting, Written Consent of Landlord, Partnership as a Ruse, Exclusive Possession
Rent Control Eviction Sub Letting Written Consent of Landlord Partnership as a Ruse Exclusive Possession

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Munshi Lal

Appellant

Smt. Santosh & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether occupation of tenanted premises by son-in-law amounts to sub-letting under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14(1)(b) r/w Section 14(4)
  2. 2 Whether a partnership arrangement without landlord's written consent can avoid eviction for sub-letting

Ratio Decidendi

Occupation of the tenanted shop by the son-in-law amounts to sub-letting within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) read with Section 14(4), as there was exclusive possession and no written consent from the landlord.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; eviction ordered.

Orders

  • Order of High Court set aside.
  • Respondents to be evicted; given time to vacate till 31st October, 2017 upon filing undertaking within four weeks.