Om Parkash and another vs Ganga Ram

Mahajan, J.—This second appeal from order is directed against the concurrent decision of the Courts below dismissing the Plaintiff''s suit. Plaintiff is a lessee under an agreement of lease dated the 4rth August, 1958 Exhibit A-3, whereby Virendra Kumar Mohatta Trust hereinafter referred to as the Trust, leased out the premises in dispute to Om Parkash. Initially these premises were let out to his father Lekh Ram. On the 5th of August. 1958, after the execution of Exhibit A-3, Lekh Ram surrendered his tenancy to the landlord thereby making it possible for Om Parkash to step into his shoes. Clause 9 of the agreement of lease, Exhibit A-3, is in these terms:-

I shall be responsible to recover the rent from the sub-tenants aforesaid and settle all my disputes with them. The landlord shall have no concern with these matters. The right to recover the rent from me by the landlords will not be affected by any dispute raised by the subtenants but in that case I shall have right to seek remedy against the said sub-tenants open in law.

On the basis of this clause, Om Parkash brought a suit for eviction against Ganga Ram for non-payment of rent. The only contention raised by Ganga Ram was that between him and Om Parkash, no relationship of landlord and tenant existed and be principally relied on the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and Section 20 of the Delhi & Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. These provisions make Ganga Ram, who was a sub-tenant of Lekh Ram a direct tenant of the trust. In other words he ceased to be a sub-tenant. The agreement of lease in favour of Om Parkash Exhibit A-3 virtually negatives these statutory provisions, namely, in as much as it relegates Ganga Ram to the position of a sub-tenant. It is fundamental that no agreement can defeat the provisions of a legislative enactment and if it does, it will be void in law to that extent. That being so, no fault can be found with the decision of the Courts below.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent relies on two decisions one of the Calcutta High Court in Dulloo Singh and Others Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.I.D. Bengal, and the other of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Anant Singh v. Skankar Singh ILR 30 All. 369, for the proposition that the owner who has leased out the property can create another lease of the same property and the only rider to this power is that it cannot derogate from the first lease. These authorities will not apply to the facts of the present case. In the cases which were decided by the Calcutta and the Allahabad High Courts, the question that the second tenancy would defeat the provisions of the statute did not arise. That being so, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.