Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition by Sub-Tenants Challenging Eviction Order, Citing Lack of Written Consent and Notice

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by sub-tenants challenging an eviction order passed against them. The court, presided over by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, held that the sub-tenants lacked the necessary written consent and notice required under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

DELHI HIGH COURT stated, “An ordinary sub-tenant has his privity of contract and estate with the tenant only. He has no relationship in law with the landlord... Both under the Transfer of Property Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree by the landlord against a tenant is sufficient for the landlord to obtain possession of the premises from the tenant even though the premises may be occupied by sub-tenants.”

The case revolved around an eviction petition filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioners, represented by Mr. S.C. Singhal, Mr. Suresh Beri, and Mr. B.S. Rana, argued that the eviction order should be set aside since the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) had failed to address relevant legal issues and consider crucial lease agreement clauses.

However, the court, referring to Clause 4 of the lease agreement, emphasized the necessity of obtaining written permission from the landlord for creating any sub-tenancy. The court also noted the absence of written consent and notice, as required by the Delhi Rent Control Act, thereby denying the sub-tenants protection under the Act.

The judgment further highlighted that the appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act should have considered questions of law, including the non-consideration of relevant provisions, such as Sections 17 and 18. The court stated, “The non-consideration of clause 4 read with Section 17 and 18 of DRC Act would fall within the question of law to be considered under Section 38 of DRC Act.”

Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating that it lacked merit and declined to award costs.

This judgment serves as a reminder that sub-tenants must fulfill the necessary legal requirements, including obtaining written consent and giving notice, to avail themselves of protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

- “An ordinary sub-tenant has his privity of contract and estate with the tenant only. He has no relationship in law with the landlord... Both under the Transfer of Property Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree by the landlord against a tenant is sufficient for the landlord to obtain possession of the premises from the tenant even though the premises may be occupied by sub-tenants.”

- “The non-consideration of clause 4 read with Section 17 and 18 of DRC Act would fall within the question of law to be considered under Section 38 of DRC Act.”

Date of Decision: April 12, 2023

Shri Rajinder Dhawan & Ors. vs Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad & Ors.