Judgment Case ID: 6132

Judgment:
ivil Appeal No. 2443 of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.80 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No. 339 of 1980. 732 Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant. Rajinder Sachhar and Mrs. J. Wad for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA	 J. This is a tenant 's appeal against the decree for his eviction from certain disputed premises passed by the Rent Controller	 Delhi and confirmed in appeal and second appeal. The respondent	 the owner of the premises	 let it out to the appellant in 1961 as a monthly tenant. An unregis tered deed of lease was executed on that occasion containing the following statement as one of the clauses: "That they will not assign or underlet or part with the premises hereby demised without the permission in writing of the landlord subject however to this proviso that they shall be entitled to assign or otherwise part with the possession of the said premises or any part thereof to their associate concerns without such consent but in any event the lessees shall be liable for the payment of the rent during the term hereby granted. The appellant is a manufacturing company of Scooters	 Pickup Vans and Auto Three Wheelers. Alleging that the appellant had sub let the premises to M/s. United Automo biles without his consent	 the respondent contended that the ground mentioned in section 14 (1) Proviso (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act	 1958 was made out and the appellant was liable to be evicted. The eviction proceeding was defended by the appellant on the ground that the M/s. United Automobiles are the authorised dealer and distributor of the product manufac tured by the appellant and has been in occupation of the premises in that capacity and can not	 therefore	 be de scribed as a sub tenant. It was alternatively argued that in view of the term of the lease as quoted above the arrange ment with the M/s. United Automobiles can not be condemned as a sublease without the consent of the respondent. The stand of the respondent has been that the above mentioned term	 of the lease can not be looked into as document was not registered and further the M/s. United Automobiles can not be assumed to be an 'associate a concern ' within the meaning of the term. The Rent Controller	 as well as	 the 733 appellate authority held that the afore mentioned term of the lease was not inadmissible and the appellant was enti tled to rely upon the same	 but ordered eviction on the ground that M/s. United Automobiles was inducted in the premises as a sub lessee. The High Court dismissed the appellant 's second appeal in limine	 and in this situation the present appeal by special leave has been filed. It has been strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that as	 (i) the United Automo biles is a distributor of the product manufactured by the appellant on the basis of commission	 (ii) it pays the same amount to the appellant as the rent of the premises payable by the appellant to the respondent	 and (iii) is entitled to be in possession only as long as it continues to be a dis tributor	 it should be held to be an 'associate concern ' within the meaning of the aforementioned term of the lease. In reply of the respondent 's contention that the term can not be taken into consideration as the deed is not a regis tered one	 it was urged that the appellant	 in view of the provisions of section 49 of the Registration Act	 is entitled to rely upon the term for 'collateral purpose '. The argument is that the document may not be admissible for the purpose of proving the existence of a lease or the terms thereof	 but as the afore mentioned clause does not come within that category	 in as much as	 it merely amounts to a written permission to the appellant to create a sub lease	 it can not be excluded from consideration on the ground of non registration. There is no dispute that the appellant has put M/s. United Automobiles in possession of the premises and has thus parted with the possession within the meaning of section 14(1) Proviso (b) of the Act. The appellant Company has a separate legal entity and has nothing to do with M/s. United Automobiles 'except that the latter is the dealer distribu tor of some of its manufactured articles. M/s. United Auto mobiles is not a licensee and is not in possession of the premises on behalf of the appellant. The monetary benefit available to the dealer is confined to the commission it receives on the sale of every vehicles; and does not include the right of enjoyment of the premises. The dealer pays a fixed sum as rent to the appellant and the rent is not related or dependant on the sale of any vehicle. 'The fact that this amount is same as what is paid by the appellant to the respondent does not appear to be material. The irresist ible conclusion is that the appellant has created a sub lease in favour of its dealer. The question now is whether the clause in the lease mentioned above amounts to the respondent 's consent in writing. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that 734 the aforesaid clause can not be looked into for want of registration of the lease deed appears to be correct. Reli ance has been placed on the observations of Fazal Ali	 J. in Sachindra Mohan Ghose vs Ramjash Agarwalla	 A.I.R. 1932 Patna 97 that if a decree purporting to create a lease is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration	 none of the terms of the lease can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause in the lease is not using it as a collateral purpose. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to meet the point by saying that so far the consent of the landlord permitting sub letting is concerned	 it does not require registration and the clause	 therefore	 must be excepted from the requirement of registration and consequent exclusion from evidence. We do not see any force in this argument. The question whether a lessee is entitled to create a sub lease	 or not is undoubtedly a term of the transaction of lease	 and if it is incorporated in the document it can not be disassociated from the lease and considered separately in isolation. If a document is inad missible for non registration	 all its terms are inadmissi ble including the one dealing with landlord 's permission to his tenant to sub let. It follows that the appellant can not	 in the present circumstances	 be allowed to rely upon the clause in his unregistered lease deed. There is still another reason to hold that the afore said clause can not come to the aid of the appellant. A perusal of its language would show that it contains the respondent 's consent in general terms without reference to M/s. United Automobiles. As a matter of fact M/s. United Automobiles came to be inducted as a sub tenant much later. Can such a general permission be treated to be the consent as required by section 14 (1) Proviso (b) of the Act? It was held by this Court In M/s. Shalimar Tar Products vs S.C. Sharma	 ; ; that Ss. 14(1) Proviso (b) and 16(2) and (3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act	 1958 enjoin the tenant to obtain consent of the landlord in writing to the specific sub letting and any other interpretation of the provisions will defeat the object of the statute and is	 therefore	 inpermissible. Since it is not suggested that the consent of the respondent was obtained specifically with reference to the Sub letting in favour of M/s. United Automobiles	 the clause in the lease deed	 which has been relied on can not save the appellant	 even if it be assumed in its favour that the clause is admissible and the sUb lessee is appel lant 's associate concern. The appeal	 therefore	 fails and is dismissed with Costs.

Summary:
The respondent let out his premises to the appellant by way of an unregistered lease deed which inter alia stated that without the permission of the landlord the premises should not he sub let except to associate concerns	 and the lessee was liable for payment of rent. Alleging that the appellant	 a manufacturing company of automobiles	 had sub let the premises to M/s United Automobiles without his consent	 the respondent initiated eviction proceedings. The appellant contended that M/s United Automobiles	 being the authorised dealer and distributor of the products manufactured by it	 has been in occupation of the premises in that capacity and cannot therefore he described as a sub tenant. Alternatively	 in view of the specific term in the lease deed	 the arrangement with the associate concern was not a sub lease without the consent of the respondent	 it was contended. The respondent took the stand that the term cannot be looked into	 as the document was not regis tered and that M/s United Automobiles cannot be assumed to he an 'associate concern ' within the meaning of the term. Both the Rent Controller and the appellate authority held that the term of the lease was not inadmissible	 but ordered eviction on the ground that M/s United Automobiles was inducted in the premises as a sub lessee. The appellant filed a second appeal before the High Court which dismissed it in limine. Hence this appeal by special leave. Dismissing the appeal	 HELD: 1. The appellant has created a sub lease in favour of its dealer	 and has thus parted with the possession within the meaning of section 14(1) Proviso (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant Com 730 731 pany has a separate legal entity and has nothing to do with M/s United Automobiles except that the latter is the dealer distributor of some of its manufactured articles. M/s United Automobiles is not a licensee and is not in posses sion of the premises on behalf of the appellant. The mone tary benefit available to the dealer is confined to the commission it receives on the sale of every vehicle; and does not include the right of enjoyment of the premises. The dealer pays a fixed sum as rent to the appellant and the rent is not related or dependant on the sale of any vehicle. The fact that this amount is same as what is paid by the appellant to the respondent does not appear to be material. [733E G] 2. The question whether a lessee is entitled to create a sub lease or not is undoubtedly a term of the transaction of lease	 and if it is incorporated in the document it cannot be disassociated from the lease and considered separately in isolation. If a document is inadmissible for non registra tion	 all its terms are inadmissible including the one dealing with landlord 's permission to his tenant to sub let. The appellant cannot	 in the present circumstances	 be allowed to rely upon the clause in the unregistered lease deed. [734C D] Sachindra Mohan Ghose vs Ramesh Agarwalla	 A.I.R. 1932 Patna 97; referred to. In the instant case	 a perusal of the clause relied on by the appellant would show that it contains the respond ent 's consent in general terms without reference to M/s United Automobiles. As a matter of fact M/s United Automo biles came to be inducted as a sub tenant much later. Such a general permission cannot be treated to be the consent as required by section 14(1) Proviso (b) of the Act. Since consent of the respondent was not obtained specifically with refer ence to the sub letting in favour of M/s United Automobiles	 the clause in the lease deed cannot save the appellant	 even if it be assumed in its favour that the clause is admissible and the sub lessee is appellant 's associate concern. [734E G] M/s Shalimar Tar Products vs S.C. Sharma	 ; ; relied on.