ANAND NIVAS (PRIVATE) LTD. versus ANANDJI KALYANJI PEDRI & ORS.

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 892 · Decided: 05-09-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1963 
Smt. 
Kaushal ya 
Devi 
v. 
Shri Mool Rai 
and others. 
Gaiemlro-
gadkar, f. 
1963 
September, 5 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
gations, and so, in ordering the transfer of the case pend-
ing against the petitioner, we are expressing no opinion 
on the allegations made by the petitioner against the said 
two parties or against the Chief Minister of Punjab. 
Transfer ordered. 
ANAND NIVAS (PRIVATE) LTD. 
ti. 
ANANDJI KALYANJI PEDRI & ORS. 
(A. K. SARKAR, M. H10AYATULLAH AND SHAH JJ.) 
Houses and Rents-Statutory Tenant and Contractual tenant-· 
Difference-Right of sub-letting-Bombay Rents. Hotel and Lodg-
ing House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959-Bom-
bay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, ss. 
12, 14 and 15. 
The respondents granted to one Maneklal for five years a lease 
of the ground and the first floor of a building named Anand Bha-
wan in the town of Ahmedabad. After the expiration of the period 
of the lease, a suit was instituted by the respondent!' against Ma-
neklal for a decree in tjectment and the realisation of arrears of 
rent. 
The suit was decreed. 
However, Maneklal sublet a part of 
the premises in his occupation to the appellant after the institution 
of the suit against him but before the promulgation of the Bombay 
Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) 
Ordinance, 1959. 
In execution of the decree, the respondents ob--
tained possession of the first floor but were obstructed as to the 
rest by the appellant and two others who claimed to be sub-lessees 
from Mancklal and thereby to have acquired rights of tenancy of 
the ground floor upon determination of the tenancy of Maneklal. 
The appellant filed a suit for a declaration that it was not 
boulld 
to 
deliver possession of the premises in its occupation in 
execution 
of 
the 
decree 
passed 
against 
Maneklal 
and 
for 
an injunction 
restraining the 
respondents 
form en forcing 
the 
decree. 
The trial Court refused to grant the interim injunction 
against the respondents. 
The lower appellate court also 
refused 
to issue the interim injunction. 
The High Court dismissed the 
appeal of the appellant on the ground that a statutory tenant re-
. 
-
-
... 
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
893 
maining in possession after determination of its contractual tenancy 
was in law 
not competent to sublet 
the 
premises in whole 
or in part and a person claiming to be a sub-tenant from a statutory 
tenant could not effectively plead the protection of s. 14 of the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 
as amended by the Ordinance of 1959. The appellant came to this 
Court by Special Leave. 
Held (per Hidayatullah and Shah, ff. Sarkar, f. dissenting) 
(i) Maneklal was a statutory tenant and as such had no right to sub-
let the premises and the appellant acquired no right of a tenant on 
the determination of the right of Maneklal by virtue of '· 14 of the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 
as amended in 1959. 
(ii) The appellant was bound by the decree obtained by the 
respondents against Maneklal and it could not take advantage: of 
the Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Registration (Bombay 
Amendment) Act, 1939. 
By s. 15( 1 ), all transfers and assignments of interests in the 
premises and sub-letting of premises by tenants arc, subject to any 
contract to the contrary, made unlawful. 
This provision a.p-
plies only to contractual tenants and not to statutory tenants who 
have no interest in the property., A statutory tenant cannot 
sublet the premises because subletting involves a transfer of the 
right to enjoy property for a certain period in consideration 
of 
price paid or promised and a statutory tenant has merely a per-
sonal right to resist eviction. Section 15(2) is in the nature of an 
exception to s. 15(1). It applies to contractual tenancies. It pro-
tects subtenants of contractual tenants and removes the bar against 
subletting imposed by s. 15(1) as well as by contract, proyided the 
transferee is in possession of the premises at the commencement 
of the Ordinance. 
A statutory tenant is a person who nmains in ~Uf'2tion of 
the premises let to him after the determination of or the expiration 
of the period of the tenancy. He has no estate or interest in the 
premises occupied by him. He merely enjoys the protection of the 
law in that he cannot be turned out so long as he pays the stan-
dard rent and permitted increases
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.