GOPPULAL versus THAKURJI SHRIJI SHRIJI DWARKADHEESHJI & ANR.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 12-03-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOPPULAL 
11. 
TllAKUlUI SHRIJI SHRIJI DWARKADHEESHJI & ANR. 
March 12, 1969 
B 
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACIIAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, IJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
I 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, (Raj. 17 of 
1950). s. 13(1)(e)-Sub·letting before enforcement of the Act-Eject· 
ment, if possible-Landlord and tenant-Increase of rent-If imports new 
demise-Sub-letting-How established. 
The respondent-landlord let out to the appellant four shops aod later 
on let out to him two more shops. 
The respondent filed a suit alleging 
that subsequent to the letting of the shops, by a contract, the rent was 
consolidated and increased and that the shops we're sub-let by the appel· 
laot, so the appellant be ejected from all the six shops under s. IJ(l)(e) 
of the Rajasthan Premises 
(Control of Rent and 
Eviction) 
Act. The 
appellant denied the contract and denied the subletting altogether. 
The 
trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court affirmed the 
decree. Both these courts concurrently found that new contract of tenaocy 
was not created. it was only an increase of rent, the other terms of the 
tenancy remained unaltered, and that the two shops were sub-let but with 
the permission. of the landlord. The High Court, in second appeal, re-
versed the decree of the courts below, and held that there was one inte-
grated tenancy of all the shops, that the four shops were sub-let with the 
permission of the landlord, but the later t\VO were sub-let without per-
mission, and that having sub-Jet a .Part of the premises without the per-
mission, the dec!ree for possession of all the shops must be passed. 
In 
appeal to this Court, the appellant-tenaot contended that (i) the tenancy 
of all the six shops were not one integrated; (ii) two shops were not sub-
let without the permission of the landlord; and (iii) the sub-letting was 
before the Jaipllr Rent Control Order, 1947 came into force, which was 
repealed and continued by the promulgation of the Rajasthan Premises 
(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, and therefore ejectment could 
not be claimed unde'r s. 13 (I )(e) of the Act. 
HELD : The appellant could not be ejected from 
four shops, but 
ought to be ejected from the two shops. 
(i) A mere increase or reduction of rent does not necessarily import 
the surrender of the existing lease and the grant of a new tenancy. In the 
present case the first two c'ollrts on a review of the entire evidence came 
to the conclusion that the increase of rent did not import a new demise. 
This finding of fact was binding on the High Court in second appeal and 
it erred in holding that there was one integrated tenancy of the six shops. 
[991 H-992 BJ 
(ii) In the abs"'1ce of any pleading and any i'8ue on the question of 
sub-letting, the first two courts were in error in holding that the two shops 
we're sub·let with the permission of the landlord. The permission of the 
landlord for the sub-letting cannot be established from the mere fact that 
the landlord realised rent after the sub-lettina in the absence of proof 
that the landlord had then clear knowled1e of the 1ub-le.,e. [992 DJ 
The date of the sub-letting of the two lhOJ!! is not mentioned in the 
plaint In the aboence of any plelQina and anv iS1ue on this queotion the 
990 
SUPllEME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 3 S.C.R. 
High Court was error in reco'rding the finding that the two shops were 
sub-let towards the end of 1947 after the Jaipur Rent Control Order 1947 
came into force. 
It can only be said that the sub-letting was sometime 
:ifter 1945. (992 El 
(iii) Section 13 ( l) ( c) of the Act was intended to apply to sub-letting 
before the Act came info force. 
If the tenant had sub-let the premises 
\\'ithout the permission of the landlord either 1'efore or after the coming 
into force of the Act, he was not protected from eviction under s. 13 ( l) 
( e), and it matters not that he had the right to sub-let the premises under 
s. I 08 ( i) cf the Transfor of Property Act. 
The present perfect tense, 
bv words "has .sub-let" in s. lJ(J)(e) of the Act contemplates J com-
pleted event connected in some \Vay with the pi'esent time. 
The \vords 
t:ike \vithin their sweep any sub-letting which was made in the part and 
hr1.r;; continued up t0 the present time. 
It did not matter that the sub-
letting \Vas either before or after the Act came into force. 
Further 
.'OS. 26 and 27(1) of the Act contemplated that grounds of eviction mention-
ed ins. 13 m:i.y have a

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