Judgment:
S.B. Wad, J.
(1) R.S.A. 12/85 is the plaintiff's appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi in R.C.A. 15/82. Cross-objections are filed by defendants 1 to 3 in the suit. The plaintiff claims to be the tenant in the portion of the first floor of premises No. 3634-3637, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. The defendants are the present owners of the said premises. Plaintiff filed suit No. 645/73 for permanent injunction against the defendants from dispossession. He alleged that he was a tenant in the property He further claimed that the eviction order No. 1462/63 passed on 16-3-63 by Sh B.K. Agnihotri, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi was illegal, null and void. He further asserted that the execution proceedings started by the defendants pursuant to the said eviction order were also illegal.
(2) The said property in question was originally owned by M/s. Dinanath Nanak Chand, who had let out the first floor of the property to M/s Janki Dass Ram Sarup, defendant No. 4 in the suit. According to the Plaintiff the said M/s. Janki Dass Ram Sarup had sublet the suit premises to the plaintiff in 1948. The original owners M/s. Dinanath Nanak Chand filed a suit for eviction against the original tenant M/s Janki Dass Ram Sarup in 1960 on the ground of subletting, the premises to the Plaintiff, Shri BK. Agnihotri, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi passed an eviction order on' 16-3-63. Before the eviction decree was passed, the property in question was purchased by Pratap Bank in a public auction in execution of a money decree against the original owners M/s. Dinanath Nanak Chand. The sale was confirmed on 4-3-61. The said Pratap Bank later on merged with Lakshmi Commercial Bank. The Lakshmi Commercial Bank thereafter sold the property to defendants 1 to 3. Defendants I to 3 thereafter filed the suit for the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 720.00 in the Small Causes Court against the plaintiff. In his written statement in the said suit, the present plaintiff alleged that defendants 1 to 3 had to locus standi to file the suit as they were not landlords. He further asserted that he was a tenant under M/s Janki Dass Ram Sarup, the original tenant and that he had paid the rent to M/s Janki Dass Ram Sarup up to July 1967. As the relationship of Landlord and tenant was denied by the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3 withdrew the said suit with the permission of the Court to file other proceedings. Defendants 1 to 3 then started the execution proceedings against the plaintiff on the basis of the eviction order passed by Shri B K. Agnihotri, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi on 16-3-63. The present suit for permanent injunction was thereafter filed by the plaintiff.
(3) The trial court held that in view of the plaintiff's denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant and hi assertion that he was the tenant of M/s. Janki Dass Ram Sarup, he was estopped from claiming to be a tenant of the suit property. The said finding was upheld by the First Appellate Court.
(4) The trial court has independently examined the plaintiffs assertion that he was the tenant of the suit property. He claimed that after the eviction order was passed against M/s. Janki Dass Ram Sarup, he became the tenant because he was a lawful sub-letter of the suit premises. He also claimed that during the pendency of the said eviction proceedings, the original landlord M/s Dinanath Nanak Chand had recognised him as the tenant. He also asserted that the Lakshmi Commercial Bank had also recognised him as a tenant. It was started that in the sale deed executed by the Lakshmi Commercial Bank in favor of the defendants he was mentioned as a tenant. The trial court has found that the said assertions of the plaintiff were not proved by any evidence and, thereforee, rejected the plaintiff's contention The learned Judge further found that notice under Section 17 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was not given by the Plaintiff for conversion of his sub-tenancy into tenancy. The first appellate court also confirmed this part of the order of the trial court.
(5) Creation of tenancy is a matter of contract between the landlord and the tenant Usually it is by a written deed. There is a no such lease deed produced by the plaintiff. His submission that an oral lease was created by the original landlord during the pendency of the eviction proceedings is. found to be baseless as no evidence was produced. The Trial Court and the Pint Appellate Court have rejected the Plaintiff's submission. I have also seen the evidence on record and I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact. The plaintiff's claim of becoming a tenant by virtue of Section 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is also without any substance. The reason is admittedly no notice was given by the Plaintiff as required by Section 17 of the Act. Plaintiff has given inconsistent stories of his being inducted as a sub-tenant in 1948 and also in 1956. It is, thereforee, held that the Plaintiff cannot claim tenancy in the suit premises.
(6) The present suit for permanent injunction was filed by the Plaintiff on the footing that he was a lawful tenant of the suit premises. Since the sub-stratum of his claim is not tenable in law, he is not entitled to any injunction against the defendants 1 to 3.
(7) The next question railed in the second appeal is in terms of issue No. 2(a) raised in the Trial Court That issue reads, 'Whether the eviction order dated 16-3-63 of Shri B. K. Agnihotri, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, is illegal and without jurisdiction.' The Trial Court held the issue against the Plaintiff and in favor of defendants 1 to 3. However, the First appellate Court reversed the said finding and held that the eviction order dated 16-3-63 was illegal and without jurisdiction. The First appellate court came to this conclusion on the basis of the judgment of the Punjab High Court in Madan Lal v. Hart Krishan Lal, 1966. Punjab Law Reporter, Page 14 In that case the Single Bench of the Punjab High Court held that the definition of landlord in Section 2(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act leads to the conclusion that the moment the property is sold by the landlord, he ceases to be a landlord and no decree for eviction could be passed. The learned Judge held that the Rent Control Tribunal cannot pass any decree of eviction an favor of the landlord who has filed an eviction petition after he has ceased to be the landlord. After relying on this judgment, the Rent Control Tribunal further held that defendants 1 to 3 or their predecessors entitled had not got themselves imp leaded as the landlords in the pending evietion. petition. The finding of the First Appellate Court is challenged in the cross-objections.
(8) In order to appreciate the respective arguments, is necessary to state a few facts. The property in question was put to auction on 24-6-59. M/s. Dinnaih Nanak Chand, the original landlord filed an eviction petition on 10-11-60. During the pendency of the eviction petition the sale was confirmed in favor of M/s. Pratap Bank on 4-3-61. The eviction order was passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of subletting on 16-3-63 In Ramchander v. Wamanrao, 1969. Rcr, page 339 the Supreme Court has held that if a suit is validly instituted a decree must necessarily follow unless the law prescribes otherwise. Undoubtedly, the present suit is based on a valid cause of action He could, thereforee, rightly file the eviction proceedings. The decree must, thereforee, necessarily follow. The jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is not lost by a subsequent change of the landlord Section 146 of Civil Procedure Code empowers the successor landlord, who claims under the first landlord to take the proceedings or continue the proceedings already started by the original landlord. Thus, there is neither want of jurisdiction in the Tribunal nor absence or locus standi for the successor landlord to continue the pending proceedings or to take further proceedings in the matter Does the confirmation of a sale break the chain of litigation already, started the effect of confirmation of sale being the change of hands as a landlord? The answer is 'No'. Even in case of purely persona right, such as a right of a statutory tenant in commercial premises, the Supreme Court has now held that such a right annures to the benefit of the heirs of a statutory tenant. The vested right of the landlord to get the tenant evicted on the ground of subletting is not a personal right, coming to an end once he sells the immovable property to a now landlord. Does the decree of eviction become illegal if the new landlord does not get himself imp leaded in the pending eviction proceedings This question also has to be answered in the negative, So long as the tenant does not object to the decree being passed on the ground that the landlord has ceased to be a landlord, the decree would be a valid decree. The exactly is what has happened in the present case. M/s, Janki Dass Ram Sarup who were the original tenants did not object to the decree being passed against them in spite of the fact that the landlord had changed. Such a tenant would be stopped in law from challenging the validity of a decree for want of jurisdiction in the Rent Controller. The Plaintiff is claiming only through the original tenant and he cannot also, thereforee, challenge the validity of the decree. He was a witness in the suit. He did not get himself imp leaded. The provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act in regard to landlord Section 2(e) does not make any difference in this well established position. The judgment of the Punjab High Court in Madan Lal v. Hari Krishan Lal, 1966, Punjab Law Reporter, page 14 cannot, thereforee, be preferred in the present case. It is difficult for me to agree with the said decision as it holds that the Rent Controller loses his jurisdiction to pass an eviction order where a new landlord has come on the scene In : AIR1971Delhi201 this Court has already found that the said view of the Punjab High Court was not correct. I, thereforee, hold that the eviction decree passed by the Rent Controller on 16-3-63 was legal and valid, Defendants I to 3 are successor landlords and they are entitled to avail of the same after they withdraw their suit against the Plaintiff with the permission of the Court. Under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act once a decree for eviction is passed against the tenant, it shall be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the premises and they are bound to give vacant possession thereof to the landlord and the landlord is entitled to get the vacant possession from all those who are in occupation of the premises. The defendants. 1 to 3 are, thereforee, entitled to eviction of the Plaintiff and to get the vacant possession of the suit premises.
(9) The eviction order was passed in 1963 and the plaintiff is holding: the possession of the premises for more than 22 years illegally. However considering the fact that be is an old occupier of the premises, I allow him one month's time to vacate the suit premises from the date of the judgment. The appeal is dismissed and the cross-appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.