FLORA ELIAS NAHOUM & ORS. versus IDRISH ALI LASKAR

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 272 · Decided: 25-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
FLORA ELIAS NAHOUM & ORS.
v.
IDRISH ALI LASKAR
(Civil Appeal No. 4189 of  2007)
JANUARY 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Rent Control and Eviction:
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – s.13(1)(a) –
Eviction suit – Claim of, on four grounds, default in payment of
monthly rent, bonafide need, sub-letting and unauthorized
construction in the suit shop by the tenant – Suit partly decreed
against the tenant on the ground of sub-letting and unauthorized
construction by the tenant in the suit shop – However, the High
Court dismissed the suit holding that no ground of either sub-letting
or an unauthorized construction was made out – On appeal, held:
Even if the landlord is able to make out only one ground out of
several grounds of the eviction, he is entitled to seek the eviction of
his tenant from the suit premises on the basis of that sole ground –
It is not necessary for the landlord to make out all the grounds
which he has taken in the plaint for claiming eviction of the tenant
under the Rent Act – On facts, landlords were able to prove the
case of sub-letting against the tenant – In view thereof, it is not
necessary to examine the other ground relating to making of
unauthorized construction by the tenant in the suit shop – Thus, the
order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is
restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Even if the landlord is able to make out only
one ground out of several grounds of the eviction, he is entitled
to seek the eviction of his tenant from the suit premises on the
basis of that sole ground which he has made out under the Rent
Act. It is not necessary for the landlord to make out all the grounds
which he has taken in the plaint for claiming eviction of the tenant
under the Rent Act. If one ground of eviction is held made out
against the tenant, that ground is sufficient to evict the tenant
from the suit premises. [Paras 16, 17][276-F-G]
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 272
272
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
273
1.2 Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy
Act, 1956 deals with the ground of sub-letting and provides that
where the tenant or any person residing in the premises let to
the tenant without the previous consent in writing of the landlord
transfers, assigns or sublets in whole or in part the premises
held by him, then it is a ground for the tenant’s eviction from the
tenanted premises. Keeping in view the pleadings and the nature
of the evidence adduced by the parties, the ground of sub-letting,
as contemplated under Section 13(a) is made out. [Paras 33-
34][279-C-D]
1.3 In the first place, the respondent-tenant, since inception,
was taking inconsistent stand on the question of sub-letting. The
contradictory stand of the respondent and that too without any
evidence clearly leads to an inference that the respondent was
unable to prove, in categorical terms, as to which capacity, ‘JM’
was sitting in the suit shop - whether as an “employee” or a
“business partner” or in any “other capacity”. Since the
respondent had admitted the presence of JM in the suit shop,
the burden was on him to prove its nature and the capacity in
which he used to sit in the suit shop. If ‘JM’ was the respondent’s
employee then, he should have proved it by filling a declaration
form, which he had submitted under the Shops and Establishment
Act to the authorities. But it was not done. Rather he admitted
that he did not disclose the name of ‘JM’ in the declaration form.
That apart, the respondent could have proved this fact by filing
payment voucher, or any other relevant evidence to show that
‘JM’ was his employee and that he used to sit in the suit shop in
that capacity only. It was, however, not done. [Paras 35, 38, 40
and 41][279-E, G-H; 280-B-C]
1.4 If ‘JM’ was a partner of the respondent in the tailoring
business then the respondent could have proved this fact by filing
a copy of the partnership deed. However, he again failed to
produce the copy of partnership deed. In this way, he failed to
prove even this fact. Appellants appear to have discharged their
initial burden by pleading the necessary facts and then by proving
it by evidence that firstly, they let out the suit shop to the
respondent and secondly, the respondent has sub-let the suit shop
to ‘JM’, who was in its exclusive possession without their consent.
FLORA ELIAS NAHOUM v. IDRISH ALI LASKAR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
In oth

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