H.C. SHARMA Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlord's second appeal against the dismissal by both the Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal of his petition for the eviction of the respondent-tenant on the grounds that the premises, which were let out to the National Insurance Company, which later vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter called 'the Corporation') for Commercial purposes, have been now let out by the latter to their employee, Shri K.C. Chakravati, for residential purposes.

(2.) The facts of the case are very clear. The premises are very near to the office of the Corporation. Shri K.C. Chakravarti is an internal auditor. He was examined as RW 3 and has stated that when he was transferred from Calcutta to Delhi he requested the Manager of the Corporation, Northern Zone, to make a suitable accommodation for him near his office at Delhi. His office is in 'F' Block Cannaught Circus. The premises are in 'E' Block Cannaught Circus. On 1.6.1962, the Estate Department of the Corporation made a proposal as per Exhibit R-5, that these premises vacated by the National Insurance Company base office were available for allotment and Shri Chakravarty, transferred from Calcutta, has to be provided with accommodation. These premises may, therefore, be allotted to him. The proposal was approved by the Zonal Manager and the keys of the flat were given to Shri Chakravarti. Later on 31.7.1962, the Zonal Manager of the Corporation wrote to Shri Chakravarti that the flat was allotted to him on a monthly licence fee and that the licence agreement should be executed by him on a non-judicial stamp paper. The standard draft of the licence agreement was enclosed for his information. Correspondence between the Corporation and Shri Chakravarti later extended to the exclusion of one room from the allotment and a corresponding reduction in the licence fee. Even then, Shri Chakravarti explained in his evidence that the licence fee was thought by him to be on a high side and he represented for its reduction. The execution of the licence deed on the standard terms sent to him, therefore, still remained to be completed and in the meanwhile Shri Chakravarti was paying Rs. 145 as licence fee plus taxes. Shri Chakravati admitted that he was occupying the premises as a licencee. The draft of the standard terms on which Shri Chakravati was allowed to occupy the premises is at Exhibit R-5.

(3.) The case of the landlord is that the occupation of the premises by Shri Chakravarti amounts to subletting, assignment or parting with possession of the whole or any part of the premises by the tenant without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord within the meaning of proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal have, further, held that the premises were occupied by Shri Chakarvarti as a licencee only because he was the employee of the Corporation and, therfore, proviso (b) to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act was not attracted. Consequently, the eviction petition was dismissed by both of them.