P.N Khanna, J.:— Ved Parkash is the owner of the house situated in Bazar Chitli Kabar, Delhi, which had been let out by him to one Noor Hasan. On July 15, 1961, Ved Parkash filed an application for ejectment of Noor Hasan Under Section 14(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called ‘the Act’. On September 22, 1961, an eviction order was passed against the said tenant, who had admitted the claim of Ved Parkash, the landlord. It appears that the house was under the occupation of one Rashid, who claimed to be a lawful sub-tenant. After obtaining permission from the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, Ved Parkash took out execution proceedings in order to evict Rashid, the occupant. It was at this stage that Rashid filed an application under sections 16, 18 and 25 of the Apt, contending that he was not bound by the decree of eviction as he was a lawful sub-tenant and had become the direct tenant under Ved Parkash, the decree-holder. He prayed for being impleaded in the proceedings. He also stated that he preferred his claim even before the Competent Authority under the Slum Areas Improvement & Clearance) Act, but without success. The objections of Rashid, however, were resisted by Ved Parkash.
2. On January 15, 1968 the Rent Controller held that the objector Rashid was a lawful tenant under Noor Hasan, since before June, 1952 The decree h favour of Ved Parkash was said to have been obtained collusion with Noor Hasan.
3. According to the Controller, Rashid shoald have been made a party to the ejectment proceedings As the decree was collusive, the Controller declined to execute it, on the condition that Rashid paid the arrears of rent with effect from May 1, 1964. Dealing with the objection of the decree-holder that no notice had been served under section 17 of the Act, the Controller held that Rashid, as a result thereof, had not become a direct tenant under the landlord, but all the same, he was a lawful sub-tenant and therefore, not liable to eviction.
4. In appeal by Ved Parkash, landlord, the Rent Control Tribunal held that in the abseace of notice under section 17(2) of the Act. Rashid was not entitled to protection from eviction as he had not been a direct tenant under the landlord. All thongs, a lawful sub-section under No. Aasan, he could not claim any protection aganst eviction. The order of the Controller was accordingly, set aside The objections of Rashid were dismissed and he was held to be liable to eviction in execation of the decree in favour of Ved Prkash Rashid has filed a second appeal to this Cour which is S.A.O 39 of 1959. Ved Parkash, the landlord, has also filed an appeal against the finding of the Triounali to the effect that Rashid was a lawful sub-tenant. The said appeal is S.A.O 314 of 1969. This order will disoose of both the aforesaid appeals.
5. After the passing of ejectment decree, Noor Hasan died and his widow Gaforaa had been impleaded as his legal representative. Gafooran also died and Ved Parkash, the landlord, moved an application for inoleading the legal representatives of Gafooran, as respondents in his appeal before this Court. But the said application has not been pressed and the same is dismissed.
6. The only question requiring consideratioa in this appeal is whether the sub tenant, Rashid, the appellant in S. A. O. 39 of 1969 is entitled to any protection against the decree of eviction passed against tenant, Noor Hasan. The relevant provisions on the subject are contained in Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act Under section 16(1) where at any time before the 9th June, 1952, the tenant had sub-l-t the premises and the sub-tenant is in occupation thereof at the com nencement of the Act, then notwithstanding that the consent of the landlord has not been obtained for the subletting, the premises are deemed to have been lawfully sublet. Rashid claims that the premises had been sublet before 9th June, 1952 and he is lawful sub-tenant in accordance with the said provisions in the Act. This contention, although challenged by the landlord, was accepted by the Controller as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal. Under sect on 17(2) of the Act where any premises have been lawfully sublet before the commencement of the Act, the tenant or the sub-tenant can give notice to the lan lord of the creation of the sub-tenancy within six months of the commencement of Act. Under section 18 of the Act, where an order for eviction in respect of the premises is made against a tenant but not against a sub-tenant and a notice of the sub-tenancy had been given to the landlord, the sub-tenant with office from the date of the order, is deemed to become a tenant holding directly under the landlord in respect of the premises in his occupation
7. The learned counsel for Ved Parkash, the landlord, urged that the Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal have just remarked that the sub-tenancy was created before 9th June, 1952, without any evidence to support it He referred to the rent receipts filed by him and the statement made by the landlord to show that the tenancy in favour of Noor Hasan, was created somewhere in July, 1952. There was, therefore, no occasion, urged the learned counsel, to hold that the sub-tenancy was created before June, 1952 The learned counsel for Rashid, was unable to point out any evidence, to show that he was in possession as a sub-tenant before Juae, 1952. The findings of the controller and of the Tribunal in this respect appear to be not supported by any evidence on record
8. But the question water the tenancy was a lawful one or not, has no relevance as it is admitted that notice require under section 17 of the Aet was never given. Rashid, therefore, never became a direct tanant under Ved Parkish, the landlord under section 18. It was therefore, not necessary for Ved Parkash to imolead Rashid as a ??? The sub-tenant could have moved the Controller for being impleaded, if he had anything to arge before him. But that does not man that the landlord was obliged to implead the sub-tenant.
9. The stress laid by the Controller on the supposed collusion between the landlord and the tenant is also without any justification. The tenant always has a right to surrender the lease whenever he likes If therefore in the present case, the tenant made a statement accepting the claim of Ved Parkash landlord it cannot be said that the decree for eviction is obtained by collusion. The sub tenant who hold under the tenant and has not acquired any rights under section 18 of the Act to become a direct tenant under the landlord, derives his title under the tenant and has no independent rights. He would stand or fall with the tenant. If the tenancy comes to an and, for that ever reason he sub-tenant will have no right to continue in possession. This legal position ha been recognized and accepted under section 25 of the Act; which provides that where the interest of any tenant in any, premises is determined for any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the Controller under the Act for the recovery of possession of such premises, the order shall, subject to the provisions of section 18, be binding on all persons, who may be in occupation of the premses and possession is required to be given to the landlord by evicting such persons therefore. Such being the case Rashid has no right to resist eviction. His appeal, S.A.O 39 of 1969 accordingly, is dismissed. The appeal of Ved Parkash, the landlord, S.A.O 344 of 1969 is decided accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. Petition decided accordingly.