LexGAJANAN DATTATRAYA versus SHERBANU HOSANG PATEL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
,,,..
•
B
~
~
,-., I)·
c
D
E
F
G
H
535
GAJANAN DATTATRAYA
v.
SHERBANU HOSANG PATEL & ORS.
August 29, 1975
[A. N. RAY, C.J., K. K. MATHEW AND Y. V. LHANDRACHUD, JJ.J
Bo1nbay Rents, Hotel & Lodging Hous,e Rates Control Act. 1947-Section
13(1)(e)-Subletting a ground for eviction whether must continue on the datt
of institution of suit dr whether sufficient if exists on the dc:.ite of notice ter-
minating tenancy.
The respondent-landlord fiJOO a suit for eviction against the appellant-tenant
on the ground that th~ appellant had sublet a portion of the premises. The
trial court and the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that on the
date when the notice terminating the tenancy was served on the appellant, he
did, in fact, sublet a portion of the suit premises.
The courts, however, came
to the conclusion that on the date when the respondent instituted the eviction
suit the sub-letting had ceased.
The trial court and the lower appellate court
granted a decre~ of eviction in favour of the respondent.
A revision filed by
the appellant before the High Court also failed.
Section I3(1)(e) of the Bombay
Rents Act makes a ground of eviction, "that the tenant has, since the coming
into operation of' this Act, unlawfully sublet. .
"
On appeal by '::ipecial leave, it was contended by the appellant
that
!he
expression ''has sublet" pre-supposes that 5ubletting must .continue till the date
of the institution of the suit.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : ( 1) The tenant is disentitled to any protection under the Bombay
Rent Act if he is within the m,ischief of the provisions of s. 13 ( 1) (e). Ta
accede to the contention of the appellant would mean that a tenant would not be
within the mischief of unlawful subletting if after the landlord gives a notice
terminating the tenancy on the ground of unlawful subl-etting the sub-tenant
vacates.
The landlord: will not be able to get any relief against the tenant in
spite of unlaWful subletting.
In that way the tenant can foil the attempt of
landlord to obtain possession of th-e premises on the ground of subletting every
time by getting the sub-tenant to vacate the premises.
{538B-C]
(2) The.tenant's liability to eviction arises when the fact of unlawful sub-
letting is proved.
At the date. of the notice. if it is proved that there was unlaw·
ful subletting, the tenant is liable to be evicted.
[538-D]
Maganlal Narandas Thakkar & Anr. v. Arjan Bhanji Kanb(. [1969] G.L.R.
Vol. 10 p. 627 Goppulal v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji & Anr. (1969]
3 S.C.R. 989, distinguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTI0:-1: Civil Appeal No. 591 of 1974.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Jtidgment and Order dated the
15th February, 1974 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision
Appln. No. 326/71.
P. H. Parekh and Manju Jaitley, for the appellant.
S. S. Khanduja and R. N. Bhalgoha, for respondents 2-4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAY, C.J.-This appeal is by special leave from the judgment
dated 15 February, 1974 of the ,Gujarat High Court dismissing the
revision petition filed by the appellant.
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 1 S.C.R.
The appellant filed a RevisiQn Petition in the High Court against
the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge dismissing his
appeal against the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit
premises.
The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for possession
of the premises on the ground that the appellant had sublet a portion
of the premises.
Section 13 (1) ( e) of the Bombay Rents,, Hotel and Lodging House
Rates Control Act, 194 7 which is the relevant section for the purpose
of this appeal runs as follows :
"13 ( l) ( e) That the tenant has, since the coming into
operation of this Act, unlawfully sublet, or after the date of
commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging
House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1973, unlawfully
given on licence, the whole or part of the premises or assign-
ed or transferred in any other marmer his interest therein".
A
B
c
The appellant took on lease on 1 January, 1960
the premises,
namely, first floor consisting of four rooms at a rent of Rs. 50/- per
I>
month.
The respondent alleged that the appellant sublet a portion thereof,
namely, two rooms, in the month of August, 1965. The respondent
on 1 April, 1967 gave a notice to the appellant terminating the
tenancy.
The appellant denied that there was aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.