Appeal No 467 of 1966
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated March 4 1965 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Regular Second Appeal No 125 D of 1964
168 AK Sen E C Agarwal and P C Agarwala for the appellant
Gauri Dayal for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Subba Rao C J
This appeal by special leave raises the question of the construction of some of the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 Act 59 of 1958 hereinafter called the Act
Appellant 1st defendant is the owner of premises No 6022 Gali Mandir Wali Arya Samaj Delhi
Ram Saran Das res pondent No 2 herein was the tenant of the appellant in respect of the said premises and Ram Kishan Das respondent No 1 herein was a sub tenant
On January 30 1959 the appellant obtained a decree for ejectment against the 2nd respondent from the court of the Subordinate Judge Delhi
To that suit the 1st respondent the sub tenant was not made a party
When that decree was sought to be executed against the 2nd respondent the 1st respondent obstructed delivery of possession of the premises on the ground that he as a sub tenant had become a tenant under the provisions of the Act
The executing court rejected his claim
Thereafter on May 22 1962 the 1st respondent filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge Delhi against the appellant and respondent 2 praying for a decree for a permanent injunction against the appellant and the 2nd respondent restraining the appellant from taking possession of the said premises
The appellant inter alia contended that section 50 of the Act was a bar to the main tainability of the suit in a civil court
It is not necessary to state the other defences as nothing turns on them in this appeal
The said plea was rejected in the first instance by the learned Subordinate Judge on appeal by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge and on Second Appeal by the High Court
Hence the appeal
The only question that arises in this appeal is whether section 50 of the Act is a bar to the maintainability of the suit filed by the 1st respondent against the appellant
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that section 50 of the Act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit as section 17 of the Act empowered the Rent Controller to decide a dispute in regard to the question whether a person was a sub tenant or not
The learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that section 173 of the Act applied only to a case where a dispute arose during the subsistence of tenancy that in the instant case the tenancy had come to an end before the Act came into force that the 1st respondent became a tenant under Sub section
2 of section 18 that a dispute 169 in regard to the question whether he had become a statutory tenant thereunder was not a dispute triable by the Rent Controller and that therefore section 50 of the Act was not a bar to the maintainability of the suit
Alternatively the learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the 1st respondent had become a tenant under section 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 that there was no provision in the Act conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Rent Controller in respect of the said right vested in him before the Act and that therefore the suit for a declaration of the said pre existing right was maintainable in the civil court
The solution to the rival contentions depends on the true construction of the relevant provisions of the Act
Under section 50 of the Act no civil court shall entertain any suit in respect of a matter which the Controller is empowered by or under the Act to decide
If the Controller in exercise of the power conferred on him under the Act can decide the dispute in respect of the claim of the 1st respondent to a statutory tenancy there cannot by any doubt that his suit is not maintainable in a civil court
section 173 of the Act on which reliance is placed for invoking the aid of section 50 reads Where in any case mentioned in sub section 2 the landlord contests that the premises were not lawfully sublet and an application is made to the Collector in this behalf either by the landlord or by the sub tenant within two months of the date of the receipt of the notice of subletting by the landlord or the issue of the notice by the tenant or the sub tenant as the case may be the Controller shall decide the dispute Under this sub section the Controller is empowered to decide a dispute between the landlord and his sub tenant in respect of any case mentioned in sub section
2 of section 17
Sub section 2 of section 17 of the Act says  Where before the commencement of this Act any premises have been lawfully sub let either in whole or in part by the tenant the tenant or the sub tenant to whom the premises have been sub let may in the prescribed manner give notice to the landlord of the creation of the subtenancy within six months of the commencement of this Act and notify the termination of such sub tenancy within one month of such termination To invoke this sub section three conditions shall be complied with namely i the premises shall have been lawfully sub let by the tenant ii the sub letting shall have been before the commence Sup
Cl66 12 170 ment of the Act and iii such tenant or sub tenant shall have given a notice to the landlord of the creation of the sub tenancy within six months of the commencement of the Act and notified the termination of such sub tenancy within one month of such termination
The dispute referred to in sub
section 3 of section 17 is in regard to such sub tenancy
It is manifest from the provisions of sub section
2 that the said provision applies only during the period of subsistence of the tenancy created before the commencement of the Act
But if the tenancy itself ceased to exist before the corn mencement of the Act the said sub section has no application
If the tripartite relationship of landlord tenant and sub tenant had ceased to exist before the commencement of the Act no question of giving notice prescribed thereunder would arise
If subs
2 does Dot apply to such a case a dispute raised between them cannot be raised before the Controller under sub section
3 of section 17 of of the Act
If that be the construction of sub section
2 and 3 of section 17 of the Act section 181 thereof would not equally help the appellant
Under sub section
1 of section 18 where an order for eviction ill respect of  any premises is made under section 14 against a tenant but not against a sub tenant referred to in section 17 and a notice of the subtenancy has been given to the landlord the sub tenant shall with effect from the date of the order be deemed to become a tenant holding directly under the landlord in respect of the premises in his occupation on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have held from the landlord if the tenancy had continued
This section also applies to a case of subsisting tenancy after the Act came into force
The reference to section 14 presupposes that an eviction order has been made against the tenant after the Act came into force
The sub tenant mentioned therein is the sub tenant referred to in section 17 and in respect of whose sub tenancy a notice has been given to the landlord that is to say a sub tenant of a tenant during the subsistence of  his tenancy
In such a case the sub tenant becomes a statutory tenant
This section cannot have any application to a case where the tenancy ceased to exist before the commencement of the Act
Sub section 2 of section 18 reads Where before the commencement of this Act the interest of a tenant in respect of any premises has been determined without determining the interest of any sub tenant to whom the premises either in whole or in part had been lawfully sub let the sub tenant shall with effect from the date of the commencement or this Act be deemed to have become a tenant holding directly under the landlord on the same terms and conditions on which the tenant would have held from the landlord if the tenancy had continued
 171 This sub section applies to a case where the interest of a tenant had been determined before the commencement of the Act but the interest of the sub tenant was allowed to subsist
In such a case the sub tenant shall with effect from the date of the commencement of the Act be deemed to have become by a statutory fiction a tenant under the landlord
This situation could arise before the commencement of the Act either because of a statute contract or a decree
Any dispute raised by such a sub tenant does not fall under sub section
3 of section 17 of the Act for as we have said the said sub section applies only to a case where a dispute arises during the subsistence of the main tenancy after the Act came into force
If so as there is no other provision in the Act under which a dispute in respect of such a sub tenancy could be decided by the Controller section 50 cannot have a bearing on the maintain ability of a suit filed in respect of such a sub tenancy
If that be the construction of the relevant provisions of the Act the 1st respondent is not hit by the provisions of section 50 of the Act
The landlord by obtaining a decree for eviction against the 2nd respondent put an end to the tenancy before the commencement of the Act
The Sub tenancy of the 1st respondent was not determined by the decree is lie was neither a party to the suit nor his rights were put in issue therein
He can therefore claim to be a tenant under section 182 of the Act
As section 50 does not apply to him he can file a Suit in a civil Court for a declaration of his right thereunder
The same result will flow if we look at the matter from a different aspect
Under section 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Reiit Control Act 1962 on the eviction of the tenant the sub tenant would be deemed to have become a tenant of the landlord
The appellant obtained a decree for eviction against the 2nd respondent on January 30 1959
The Act came into force subsequently
He had therefore acquired a vested right under the Act of 1952
No provision of the Act has been pointed Out to us which took way that right
There was also no provision under the Act empowering the Controler to decide a dispute raised in regard to the said right vested in the 1st respondent
If so it follows that section 50 of the Act cannot be a bar to the suit filed by the 1st respondent for a declaration of his said right
The view expressed by us finds support in the unreported judgment of Mehar Singh J of the Punjab High Court Circuit BeBench at Delhi in Smt
Viran Wati Devi and another vs Jaswant Rai and mother1
There the learned Judge after considering the provisions of sub sections
2 and 3 of section 17 of the Act observed It ippeai s to me obvious on a plain reading of those two sub sections of section 17 that the procedure provided 1Civil Revision No 558 D of 1961 Decided oil 15 2 t962
172 by those sub sections is available to a tenant and his sub tenant during the subsistence of the tenancy and the sub tenancy but where the tenancy has ceased to exist or the sub tenancy has ceased to exist those sub sections are apparently not attracted and resort cannot be had to their provisions The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision of this Court in Mohd Mahmood vs Tikam Das1 in support of his contention
That case arose under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961
The provisions of that Act though not in pari materia with the provisions of the Act now in question are similar to those of the Act in many respects
There the landlord terminated the tenancy before the said Act came into force filed a suit for ejectment and obtained a decree for eviction on June 23 1962 after the said Act came into force
The said Act came into force on December 40 1961
On June 25 and 26 1962 the appellants served notices on the landlord under section 152 of the said Act claiming that as the tenant had sub let the premises to them before the Act had come into force with the consent of the landlord they had become his direct tenants under section 162 of the said Act and on June 28 1962 the appellants filed a suit against both the landlord and the tenant in a civil court praying for a declaration that they had in the circumstances become direct tenants of the premises under the landlord
On June 30 1962 the landlord sent a reply to the notices sent by the appellants in which he denied that the sub letting by the tenant had been with his consent or was lawful
Here it may be mentioned that section 152 of that Act corresponds to section 172 of the Act and sub section
3 of section 15 of that Act corresponds to sub section
3 of section 17 of the Act
Section 451 of that Act which bars a suit in a civil court is analogous to section 501 of the Act
If the dispute was one that could be decided by the Rent Controlling Authority under section 153 of that Act the suit in respect of the dispute would not be maintainable by reason of section 451 of the said Act
Under sub section
3 of section 15 of that Act a sub tenant could make an application to the Rent Controlling Authority for deciding a dispute within two months of the date of issue of notice by him
Instead of filing such an application the tenants filed a suit in the civil court within the said time prescribed
On those facts this Court held by reason of section 451 of that Act the suit was not maintainable
But in so holding this Court left open the question whether such a suit could be filed in a civil court after the period of limitation prescribed under section 153 of that Act had expired
This Court observed Another question mooted was that the two months mentioned in sub section
3 only provided a special period of 1  131
173 limitation for the application mentioned in it and the provision of the period did not mean that a Rent Controlling Authority had power to decide the matter only if an application had been made within that period so that if no such application had been made after the expiry of the period a civil court would have jurisdiction to decide a dispute as to whether a sub letting was lawful
The point is that the real effect of section 153 was to deprive the civil court of the jurisdiction to decide that dispute for all time
We do not feel called upon to decide these questions
They do not arise in the present case and it was not said that these questions affect the question of the competence of the civil court to try the present suit
The suit was filed within the period of two months during which admittedly the Rent Controlling Authorities had jurisdiction to decide the dispute on which it was based
Whatever may be the jurisdiction of a civil court on other facts in the present case it clearly had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellants  suit
 The decision of this Court therefore has a limited scope
It has only held that during the prescribed period under section 153 of the said Act no suit would lie in a civil court
In the present case the suit was filed in the civil court beyond the period prescribed
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
VPS Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The landlord of the premises in dispute obtained a decree for ejectment against his tenant before the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958
The sub tenant was not a party to that suit and the sub tenancy was not determined by that decree
In 1962 the subtenant filed a suit against the landlord claiming to have become a statutory tenant of the premises
The landlord contended that under section 50 of the Act no civil court shall entertain any suit in respect of a matter which the Controller is empowered by or under the Act to decide and that as section 173 of the Act empowered the Controller to decide a dispute in regard to the question whether a person was a sub tenant or not the suit was not maintainable
HELD  Section 50 was not a bar to the suit
The provision of the Act applicable to a case where the interest of a tenant had been determined before the commencement of the Act but the interest of the sub tenant was allowed to subsist is section 182
Under this sub section the sub tenant shall with effect from the date of the commencement of the Act be deemed to have become by a statutory fiction a tenant under the landlord
There is no provision in the Act under which a dispute in respect of such a sub tenancy could be decided by the Controller
Any dispute raised by such a sub tenant does not fall under section 173 for section 173 applies only to a case where a dispute arises during the subsistence of the main tenancy after the Act came into force and where the dispute was raised within two months of the issue of the notice of sub letting by the tenant or sub tenant
171 A C Mohd Mamood vs Tikam Das   explained
Moreover under section 20 of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act 1952 on the eviction of the tenant the sub tenant would be deemed to have become a tenant of the landlord
There is no provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 which took away that vested right or empowered the Controller to decide a dispute raised in regard to it
Section 50 therefore could not have any bearing on the maintainability of the suit
171 E G