ANANDRAM CHANDANMAL MUNOT AND ANR. versus BANSILAL CHUNILAL KABRA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 19-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ANANDRAM CHANDANMAL MUNOT AND ANR. 
v. 
BANSILAL CHUNILAL KABRA (SINCE DECEASED) 
THROUGH LRS AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 19, 1999 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) 
Rent Control & Eviction: 
A 
B 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947: C 
Sections 5 (I 1), 12, 13 (I)(f) and 14-Premises let out by appellants-Tenant sublet 
the premises in 1972-73-Suitfor eviction dismissed by the trial court-On appeal, 
· eviction orders against tenant passed on the ground of default in payment 
of rent-Petition filed by the appellants in the High Court dismissed-
Tenancy of the tenant held to be determined from the date of decision of the 
Appellate Court instead of the date of issuance of notice by the appellants- D 
Sub-tenancy held to be lawful-On appeal-Held, sub-tenancy lawful-By 
the 1987 amendment, lawful sub-tenancies created prior to February, 1973 
were saved-In the notice rent was claimed from the tenant only-In the suit 
also eviction was sought against tenant only-Sub-tenant cannot be a direct 
tenant in all the circumstances-Interest of a sub-tenant satisfying conditions E 
of Section 14 ripens into that of a tenant. 
Words & Pharses: 
'Tenant '-Meaning of in the context of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging 
House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
F 
The appellants had let out certain shop premises to respondent No. I 
who had further let out the same to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. By a notice dated 
16-01-1975 the appellant demanded arrears of rent from R-1 wherein he also 
stated that R-1 had inducted R-2 to the shop premises by taking a substantial 
amount as 'Pagri'. The appellants filed a suit for eviction against the G 
respondents under the provisions of the Bombay rents, Hotel and Lodging 
House Rates Control Act, 1947 on the grounds of (i) non-payment of rent, (ii) 
damage to the premises, (iii) bonafide requirement. Subletting was stated to 
be in the year 1972-73. The said suit was dismissed on all the grounds. On 
appeal, the appellate Court, however, ordered eviction of R-1 on the ground of H 
495 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A default in payment of rent R-2 being a lawful sub-tenant, no decree was passed • 
against him. An adverse inference was drawn against the appellants as he 
~' 
failed to produce the alleged counter foils of the rent receipts which according 
to the appellants were signed by R-2. Writ petition filed by appellanti: was 
also dismissed by the High Court with the modification that tenancy of the R-
B 1 stood determined on the day of dismissal of the appellants appeal inste:!d of 
on the day of issuance of notice by the appellants, as held by the lower appellate 
Court. Hence the present appeals. 
The appellant contended that since R-1 had contravened the provi:1ions 
<> 
of Section 12 of the Act he was liable to eviction and since R-2, the sub-tenant 
C claims through him, he was also liable to eviction inasmuch under clause 
(11) of Section 5 of the Act tenant includes sub-tenant. It was also conte1~ded 
that when rent is in arrears, it is qua the premises and the sub-tenant who is 
occupying the premises would also be liable for default in payment of rent of 
the premises and thus could be evicted along with the main tenant. The 
. D 
subletting by R-1 was also contended to be unlawful . 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. When the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Flates 
Control Act, 1947 was enacted, a sub-tenant was saved from the eviction if . 
E sub-tenancy had been created prior to February 13. 1948. Under the Ordinance 
of 1959, which was subsequently replaced by the Bombay Act 49 of 1959, a 
lawful sub-tenancy created prior to May 21, 1959 was also saved. Again by 
the amending Act (Bombay Act 18of1987) lawful sub-tendencies created prior 
to February 1, 1973 were saved. Thus a sub-tenant is protected ifsub-tena1ncy, 
which is lawful, is created prior to February 1, 1973. Now a tenant is barred 
F from even giving on licence any premises or any part thereof after Febrnary 
1, 1973 unless of course contract between him and to landlord so provided. 
[503-F, G, H; 504-A, B, CJ 
1.2. Under Section 14 of the Act sub-tenant becomes tenant only after 
G tenancy of the tenant is determined. In the notice dated January 16, 1975, the 
appellants have claimed rent only from R-1. It is his tenancy whil:h is 
determined and the allegation is that R-1 inducted R-2 to the suit premises. 
In the suit also it is R-1 against whom ground for evict
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.