BHOOLCHAND AND ANR. versus KAY PEE CEE INVESTMENTS AND ANR.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 10-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

. BHOOLCHAND AND ANR. 
v. 
KAY PEE CEE INVESTMENTS AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 10, 1990 
(J.S. VERMA AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
Karnataka Rent Conrol Act. 1961-Sections 21(41and50---Sub-
/etting without written constent of the landlord eviction of tenant-
Written consent of landlord for subletting-Whether enures to benefit 
of tenant during subsistence of statutory tenancy after expiry of con-
tractual tenancy. 
A 
B 
c 
T.A. Jotindraoath Mndaliar, the original lessor, let oot Jijs pre-
mises viz. two shops and a hoose adjoining the shops to M/s.Bhoolchaod 
Chandiram, appellant on 4.10.1943 on the terms contained in the letter 
dated 4.10.1943 whereby the shops were let ont on a monthly rent of 
Rs.430 for two years with the option of sub-letting one of the shops and 
D 
the house adjoining the shops was let oot on a monthly rent of Rs.so for 
eleven months with the option of sub-letting the hoose also. The appel-
lant sub-let one of the two shops to one 'Arts Palace' and later w .e.f. 
1.4.1948, the appellant inducted .another sub-tenant M/s. Super Dry 
Cleaners, appellant in the other appeal. Consequent upon a partition in 
the family of original lessor, the premises in dispute came to the share of 
E 
Narendranath Mudaliar. The original lessor including Nareodranath 
Mudaliar after partition continued to realise rent from the tenant of the 
entire premises till May 1974. On 28.6.1974, Nareodranath Mudaliar 
sold the property in question to respondent No. 1. The appellant-
teoants attomed in favour of respondent No. 1 and paid rent for the 
premises @ Rs.335 (fair rent fixed) to respondent No. 1. Respondent 
F 
No. 1 Ttled· a petition on 5.9.1975 for eviction of the appellant on the 
grounds of sub-letting and bona fide need of the landlord under clauses 
(I) and (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the 
Karoataka Rent Act. 
The trial court dismissed the application, but the High Court set 
G 
aside that order and passed a decree for eviction on both the grounds. 
Hence these appeals by the tenant and sub-tenant have been filed after 
obtaining special leave of the Court. 
The appellants question the f"mdings of the High Court on both the 
questions viz. bona fide requirement of the landlord as also sub-letting. 
H 
251 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] Supp. 2 s.C.R. 
A 
Respondent No. i on the other hand urged that there is no inflnnity in 
the High Court's decision on both the questions so as to warrant any 
interference in these appeals. 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: Landlord's written consent for sub-letting during the 
period of contractual tenancy cannot be construed as his consent sub-
sisting after the expir,y of the contractual tenancy. [265DJ 
A sub-letting by the tenant with the consent in writing of the 
landlord .does not become unlawful on the expiry of the contractual 
tenancy of the tenant, unless there is any fresh sub-letting by the tenant 
without the written consent of the landlord. Mere continuance in pos-
session of a sub-tenant lawfully inducted does not amount to any fresh 
or further sub-letting. [265E-FJ 
' 
The sub-letting In the instant case was after expjry of the con-
tractual tenancy and after the commencement of the Act .prohibiting 
sub-letting without the written consent of the landlord when it was 
made on 1.4.1948. [265B] 
Damadilal and Ors. v. Parashram and Others, [1976] supp. SCR 
645; Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Amma/, [1980] 1 SCR 334; Smt. 
Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar and Ors., [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 1; 
L. Mahabir Prasad Verma v. Dr. Surinder Kaur, [1982] 3 SCR 607; 
M/s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors., [1988] 1 
SCC 70; Shanti/al Rampuria and Ors. v. Mis. Vega Trading Corpn. and 
Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 552; M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. v, Behari Lal Kohli, 
[1989] 4 SCC 39; Duli Chand (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Jagmender Dass, 
[1990] 1 SCC 169 and Tara Chand and Anr. v. Ram Prasad, [1990] 3 
sec 526, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 470 I 
and 4702 of 1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12 .12.1983 of the Karnataka 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 3765 of 1981. 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Rameshwar Nath, Ravinder Nath and 
Sukumar Ghosh for the Appellants in C.A. Nos. 470 I and 4702 of 
1985. 
. 
BHOQLCHAND v. K.P.C. INVES1MENTS (VERMA, J.J 
253 
P. chidambram, S.S. Javali, H.R. Anantha Krishna Murthy and 
Ranjit Kumar for the Respondents in C.A. Nos. 4701 and 4702 of 
1985. 
The Judgment of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.