A. MAHALAKSHMI versus BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR. & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 07-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
A. MAHALAKSHMI
v.
BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9443 of 2019)
JANUARY 07, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 –
ss. 10(2)(1), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and 10(2)(iii) – Eviction on the ground
of sub-letting and arrears of rent –  The owner of the suit property
had executed a power of attorney in the name of the appellant and
in respect of the said property – Appellant let out the premises in
question to original respondent no. 1 for commercial purposes –
Appellant noticed a change in the name as well as ownership of the
shop in the tenanted premises – Consequent to which, the appellant
filed a suit for eviction on the ground of sub-letting and arrears of
rent – It was a case on behalf of the respondent no. 1-original
tenant that on the basis of an oral agreement, respondent no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 were running the business as partners and there
was no sub-letting of premises in favour of respondent no. 2 –
Eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller – Thereafter,
Rent Control Appellate Authority passed the eviction decree on the
ground of sub-letting – However, the High Court set aside the
eviction order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority – On
appeal, held: In cross-examination, the respondent no. 1-original
tenant had specifically admitted that in the bank accounts of the
firm, respondent no. 2 was shown as owner of the premises – He
specifically admitted that he had handed over the premises to the
respondent no. 2 through power of attorney and respondent no.2
was running the premises as owners – The application/sales tax in
respect of the suit property was registered in the name of respondent
no. 2 – Thus, from the disposition of original respondent no. 1 and
material/evidence on record, it was a clear case of sub-letting –
There was no genuine partnership between respondent no. 1 and
respondent no. 2 – The High Court committed error in setting aside
the decree of eviction on the ground of sub-letting – Therefore,
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 8
8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court set aside
and judgment passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority
restored.
Rent Control and Eviction – Sub-letting – Held: Sub-letting
means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour
of the third party – To constitute a sub-letting, there must be a parting
of legal possession, i.e., possession with the right to include and
also right to exclude others – Sub-letting, assigning or otherwise
parting with the possession of the whole or any part of the tenancy
premises, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord,
is not permitted and if done, the same provides a ground for eviction
of the tenant by the landlord – When the eviction is sought on the
ground of sub-letting, the onus to prove sub-letting is on the
landlord.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
various decisions to the facts of the case on hand and on
appreciation of evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion
that there is no genuine partnership between respondent no.1
and respondent no.2.  Respondent no.1 has come out with a case
of partnership only to get out from the allegation of sub-letting.
The exclusive possession of the suit premises is with respondent
no.2.  Respondent no.2 is running the business in the suit
premises as an owner. Sales Tax Certificate and the licence are
also in the name of respondent no.2.  The bank accounts are in
the name of respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 is exclusively
dealing with the bank accounts.  Under the circumstances, a clear
case of sub-letting has been made out.  The High Court has
committed a grave error in setting aside the decree of eviction
on the ground of sub-letting. [Para 9] [18-B-D]
Associated Hotels of India Limited v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit
Singh AIR 1968 SC 933 : [1968] SCR 548 ; G.K.
Bhatnagar v. Abdul Alim, (2002) 9 SCC 516 ; Helper
Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri,
(1987) 3 SCC 538 : [1987] 3 SCR  289 ; Celina Coelho
Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1
SCC 217 : [2009] 15  SCR 558  –  relied on.
A. MAHALAKSHMI v. BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1968] SCR  548
relied on
Para 8
(2002) 9 SCC 516
relied on
Para 8
[1987] 3 SCR  289
relied on
Para 8
[2009] 15 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.