Effect of Sub-Letting : Relevant Rate of Rent under Delhi Rent Control Act: The Law

Justice A.K. Sikri
Delhi High Court

An interesting question was raised in the instant case (M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs M/s. Pal Properties (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others), where the Premises in question was let out to the tenant for a rent less than Rs. 3500/- per month and the said tenant further sub-let the Premises for an amount exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month. The question that arose for the consideration of the Bench was which rate of rent would be applicable to determine the question regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of S. 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The Bench held that once the tenant sublets the property for a rent exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month, then the relevant rent for the consideration of the Court would be the amount exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month. The Court held that once the premises fetches a rent exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month, the tenant loses the protection afforded by the Delhi Rent Control Act. The relevant Para(s) of the judgments are reproduced hereinbelow;

14. The last question which calls for determination is as to whether the tenancy of the defendants is protected under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 50 of the said Act. On this aspect facts are not in dispute. Defendants 1 to 3 are paying the rent of Rs. 1540/-. However, they have sub-let a part of the tenanted premises to defendant No. 4 and defendant No. 4 is paying the rent of Rs. 24,701.25 paise to defendants 1 to 3. Therefore, no evidence is required and legal question which calls for determination is as to whether it is a rent of Rs. 1540/- paid by tenants to the landlord or it is a rent of Rs. 24,701.75 paise paid by sub-tenant to tenants which would be a determinative factor in such proceedings. This issue is no more res integra. Identical question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.S. Jain Company Ltd. Vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. . In para-5, the question which fell for consideration was posed. It reads as under:

"The point for consideration in the appeal is: Whether a tenant who is paying a rent of Rs. 900/- p.m. Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) can be evicted by a simple notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, through the civil Court if he has lawfully sub-let there premises to two tenants, one for Rs. 40,000/- p.m. and another for Rs. 4,500/- p.m. (in each cases for more than Rs. 3,500/- p.m.)?

15. The answer to this question is found in paras 8, 9 and 12 of that judgment. After relying upon for Supreme Court judgments dealing with purposeful construction of a statute rather than adopting mechanical approach, in para-12 the Court observed as under:

"12. In our view, the intention behind Section 3(c) is that a premises which fetches a rent of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. should be exempt and that protection should be restricted to buildings fetching a rent less than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. In case a tenant paying less than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. to his landlord has sublet the very same premises may be lawfully for a rent above Rs. 3,500/- p.m., then the question naturally arises whether such a tenant can be said to belong to weaker sections of society requiring protection. By sub-letting for a rent above Rs. 3,500/- p.m., the tenant has parted with his physical possession. He is receiving from his tenant (i.e. the sub-tenant) more than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. though he is paying less than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. to his landlord. The above contrast is well illustrated by the facts of the case before us. The appellants tenant is paying only Rs. 900/- p.m. to the plaintiff, while one for Rs. 40,000/- p.m. and another for Rs. 4,500/- p.m. In regard to each of these units, the sub-tenants have no protection of the Rent Act. In our view, the purpose of Section 3(c) is not to give any protection to such a tenant.

16. Thus it is clear that the relevant rent is the one which is paid by sub-tenant to the tenant. In the instant case it is more than Rs. 3,500/- PM and, therefore, no protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act would be available to the defendants and the present suit is not hit by Section 50 of the Rent Control Act.

Doctrine of Non Traverse : The Concept Explained

Justice V.B. Gupta of the Delhi High Court has enunciated the 'Doctrine of Non-Traverse' in his judgment in Smt. Asha Kapoor v. Sh. Hari Om Sharda . The extract of the judgment is given below;

16. Order VIII Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) read as under;

"3. Denial to be specific.- It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the ground alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.

4. Evasive denial- Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.

5. Specific denial-[(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability; Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.

(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the fact contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. (3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.

(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.]"

17. The effect of Order 8 Rule 3 read along with rr 4 and 5 of the Code is that, defendant is bound to deal specifically with each allegation of fact not admitted by him; he must either deny or state definitely that the substance of each allegation is not admitted. The main allegations which form the foundation of the suit should be dealt with in that way and expressly denied. Facts not specifically dealt with will be taken to be admitted under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code.

18. Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code is known as doctrine of non-traverse which means that where a material averment is passed over without specific denial, it is taken to be admitted. The rule says that any allegation of fact must either be denied specifically or by necessary implication or there should be a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, then the allegation should taken to be admitted.

19. Supreme Court in M. Venkataraman Hebbar (D) By L.RS. Vs. M. Rajgopal Hebbar & Ors. 2007 (5) SCALE 598, observed;

"Thus, if a plea which was relevant for the purpose of maintaining a suit had not been specifically traversed, the Court was entitled to draw an inference that the same had been admitted. A fact admitted in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act need not be proved."

Naik Paranjpe secures relief for Big Boss

Source : Sify.com

Viacom 18, which owns Colors channel has challenged the Central Government's decision to restrict the airing of the TV show 'Bigg Boss' only between 11 PM and 5 AM in the Bombay High Court.

On Thursday, it won a reprieve and the show will not have to move to the 11 pm slot for now.

Colors, which moved the court this morning, said: "No date has been mentioned as to when the show was against good taste and decency. The channel also said that its content cannot be described as obscene."

"The show has been on for one and a half months, what is the urgency suddenly?" asked Colors in court.

The channel further accepting that the government has the power to force a schedule change, said the advertisement commitment and content would have to be changed in that case.

Faced with mounting complaints from TV viewers and women outfits about objectionable contents, the Government had on Wednesday ordered channels airing TV shows 'Big Boss' and 'Rakhi ka Insaaf' to broadcast them only between 11 PM and 5 AM, virtually bracketing them as only for adult viewing.

"Both shows are not for universal viewing and can be aired only in the scheduled time slot," said Ministry of Information and Broadcasting officials.

While 'Big Boss' is being aired on Colors, 'Rakhi ka Insaaf' is aired on NDTV Imagine.

The decisions were reportedly taken at an inter-ministerial meeting represented by Additional Secretaries from the Ministry of Home, Women and Child Development, External Affairs and Information and Broadcasting.

Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy was instructed by Naik Paranjpe partner Ameet Naik in the writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court.

Delhi HC issues notices to Centre and Delhi Government to prosecute Arundhati Roy

Arundhati Roy

Source : Indlaw.com

The Delhi High Court has issued notices to the Centre and the Delhi government on public interest litigation, seeking directions to the governments to prosecute noted writer Arundhati Roy for her alleged seditious remarks on Kashmir made at a public function last month. 

Petitioner Salekchand Jain, through his counsel Sugrive Dubey, urged the court to direct the two governments to prosecute Ms Roy under the Prohibition of Seditious Meeting Act, 1911, and section 121 (waging and attempting to wage war or abetting the waging of war against the government of India) of the Indian Penal Code. 

Taking the petition on record, Justice Hima Kohli directed the respondents to file replies to the petition by January 23. 

The petitioner alleged that the writer had committed a crime under the Act and the IPC by making remarks on Kashmir at a seminar in the national capital last month. 

He said since the Union government had failed to take any action against her, it was the duty of the judiciary to step in and rein such people for making seditious statements. 

Another such petition in which Kashmiri separatist Syed Ali Shah Geelani is also named along with Ms Roy as an accused for making ‘anti-India’ remarks is pending in the Patiala House Court.