BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI versus M/S BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 157 · Decided: 08-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 5 S.C.R. 157 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF MUMBAI 
v. 
M/S BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY PVT. LTD. &· ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3147 of 2011) 
APRIL 8, 2011° 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Bombay Rent Act, 1947: ss.13(1)(e), 15(1), (2), 22 -
Unlawful sub-letting - Suit for eviction on the ground of 
unlawful sub-letting by the tenant of leasehold property- Held: 
C 
Sub-letting, assignment, transfer of interest in any manner or 
licencing made by the tenant after February 1, 1973 without 
there being any sanctioning clause in the contract or without 
any express consent of the landlord would constitute a ground 
for eviction u/s. 13(1 )(e) - In the instant case, the tenant made 
D 
a sub-lease and parted with the possession of suit land in 
favour of sub-tenant - Sub-lease though executed on June 
17, 1978 was made effective retrospectively from June 15, 
1964 - Material on record showed that sub-tenant was in 
possession of suit premises long before February 1, 1973 and 
E 
had continued to be in possession on that date - Subletting, 
thus, clearly fell within the protective ambit of s. 15(2) - There 
was no material change in the status of sub-tenant or in the 
terms and conditions on which it was in possession of suit land 
on February 1, 1973 or in the inter se relationship between 
the tenant and sub-tenant - Execution of sub-lease on June 
17, 1978 would not, therefore, militate against the protection 
offered bys. 15(2) - Ground for eviction uls. 13(1 )(e) not made 
out - Eviction suit dismissed - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 
- ss. 106, 108(j), 114A - Rent control and eviction. 
The plaintiff-respondent no.1 was the landlord of the 
suit premises. The defendant no.1-appellant trustee was 
the tenant in the suit premises. The plaintiff filed a suit for 
157 
F 
G 
H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A eviction against defendant no.1. Later on by way of 
amendment, defendant no.2 was joined in as the sub· 
tenant under the defendant no.1. In the suit, plaintiff 
averred that the suit land was given to defendant no.1 on 
lease for 999 years by its predecessors-in-interest under 
B a registered lease deed dated May 10, 1866. The plaintiff 
sought eviction of defendants from the suit premises on 
the grounds of breach of the terms and conditions of the 
said lease deed mainly the condition against assignment 
of any portion of the leasehold land to any third party. 
c 
The trial court decreed the suit holding that 
respondent no.1 had failed to establish the breach of any 
other terms of the lease but had successfully proved the 
breach of the covenant against assignment of the 
leasehold property to the third party. The trial court 
D pointed out that under clause 4 of the lease deed, 
defendant no.1 was not supposed to part with 
possession of the leasehold or to induct any third person 
into the suit property unless it obtained a licence in 
writing from the lessor, the plaintiff and there was no 
E · material to show that it had obtained any licence from the 
plaintiff before parting with ·possession of the leasehold 
in favour of defendant no.2, the sub-lessee. The trial court 
also observed that for inducting defendant no.2 into the 
suit premises, defendant no.1 had charged compensation 
F higher than the rent/compensation it paid to the plaintiff 
and, therefore, the act of defendant no.1 was contrary to 
clause 4 of the original lease deed and defendant no.1 
was guilty of committing its breach. The trial court also 
upheld the validity of the notice issued by the plaintiff to 
G defendant no.1 determining and forfeiting the lease. It 
further held that the transaction between the plaintiff and 
defendant no.1 was covered by the provisions of the . 
Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the suit could not 
be said to be barred by limitation. Dealing with the 
H question of the decree being binding on defendant no.2, 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF tHE PORT OF MUMBAI v. 159 
BYRAMJEE JEEJEEBHOY PVT. LTD. 
. 
the trial court observed that once it was held that the sub-
A 
lease created in favour of defendant no.2 was unlawful 
and illegal, the decree of eviction passed against the 
lessee would fully bind the sub-lessee. 
The appellate court dismissed the appeals filed by 
8 
defendant nos.1 and 2. The High Court affirmed the 
findings of the courts below. The instant appeals were 
filed challenging the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The instant case proc

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