A.S. SULOCHANA versus C. DHARMALINGAM

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 379 · Decided: 28-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A.S. SULOCHANA 
·v. 
C. DHARMALINGAM 
NOVEMBER 28, 1986 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND-B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, s.10(2XiiXa)-
Eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting-Such sub-felling must be by the 
tenant sought to be evicted and not by his predecessor. 
A 
B 
The appellant-landlord instituted an eviction suit in 1970 against the 
C 
respondent-tenant on the ground of unlawful subletting. The respondent had 
inherited the tenancy upon the death of his father in 1968. The subletting was 
created, in 1952 during the life iime of appellant's father. Neither tlie appellant, 
nor the respondent had any personal knowledge about the terms and 
conditions of the lease originally granted by the father of the appellant in favour 
of the father of the respondent. 
D 
The High Court, while dismissing the appeal of the appellant-landlord, 
held that a tenant sought to be evicted on the ground of unlawful subletting 
under s.10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 
1%0 must himself have been guilty of the contravention and that the alleged 
contravention by his father when he was a tenant can be of no avail for evicting · E 
>· 
the tenant. 
Dismissing the Appeal of the appellant-landlord, this Court;, 
HELD: l(i) Section 10(2) of the Act opens with the words, "a landlord 
who seeks to evict his tenant" and provides that if the tenant has created a sub-
F 
tenancy without the written consent of the landlord, he will be liable to be 
evicted. When the statute says' the tenant who is sought to be evicted must be 
guilty .Jf the contravention, the Court cannot say, "guilt of his predecessor in 
interest" will suffice. [382C-D] 
(ii) The flouting of the law, the sin under the Rent Act, must be the sin of G 
the tenant sought to be evicted and not thai of his father or predecessor in 
interest. It being a penal provision in the sense that it visits the violator with the 
punishment of eviction, it must be strictly construed, for it causes less misery to 
be sheltered in a jail, than to be shelterless without. [382E] 
In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the subletting H 
379 
380 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS, 
[1987] 1. S.C.R. 
A which was made in 1952, 18 years before the institution of the eviction suit in 
1970, was in violation of the relevant provisions oflaw. There is no evidence, 
direct or circumstantial, on the basis of wMch it can be said that the lease did not 
confer on the father of the respondent the lightto create a sub-tenancy, or that it 
w.S done without the written consent of the then landlord, the father .of the 
appellant. Under these circumstances, th" appellant cannot successfully evict 
B the respondent on the ground of having created an unlawful sub-tenancy within 
the !"eaning of S.10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act:. [381G, 382A-B) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1124 of'1973 
From the Judgment and Order da:ed 29.11.1972 of the Madras High 
C 
Court in CR.P. No. 1066 of 1972. 
D 
E 
F 
K. Ramkumar for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THAKKAR, J. The view taken by the High Court that a tenant sought 
to be evicted on the ground of unlawful subletting under Section 10(2)(ii)(a)1 of 
the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rer.t Control) Act, 1960 must himself 
have been guilty of the contravention and that the alleged contravention by his 
father when he was a tenant can be of no av1il for evicting him is assailed in this 
appeal by special leave. The High Court ha< so pronounced in the backdrop of 
the admitted fact that respondent had himself not created any sub-tenancy after 
he became the tenant in 1968 upon the death of his father. The plea raised by the 
appellant that the tenancy created in 1952 by the father of respondent rendered 
him liable to be evicted in the suit instituted by the appellant in 1970 was 
repelled. The unsuccessful landlord has now invoked this Court's jurisdiction 
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 
Facts not in dispute are:-
I. The father of the appellant 1ad granted a lease in favourof the 
G 
1. "10(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant sha'l apply to theControilerfor a direction in 
that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of 
showing cause·against the application, is s.:tisfied-
H 
(i) xxx xxxx 
(ii) that the tenant has after the 23rd October, 1945 without the-written consent 
of the !andlord-
(a) 
tran

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