HIRALAL VALLABHRAM versus KASTORBHAI LALBHAI & ORS.

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 343 · Decided: 31-03-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
' 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
' 
H 
IDRALAL VALLABHRAM 
v. 
KASTORBHAI LALBHAI & ORS. 
March 31, 1967 
[K. N. WANCHOO, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (51 of 
1947), s.r. 14 and 28-Notice by landlord terminating tenancy-If tenancy 
11is determined for any reason"..:.....Sub.tenant's rights-Jurisdiction of court 
to order eviction. 
The landlords of certain premises gave notice .to their tenants termi· 
natlru! the tenancy. After the period fixed in the notice for vacating the 
premfses expired, the landlords filed a su:t for eviction under s. 28 of the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, in the 
Court of the Judge of Small-Causes. The suit was based on two grounds, 
namely : (i) that the rent was in arrears for six months, and (ii) 
that 
there was unlawful sub-Jetting by the ·tenants to the appellant. The te-
nan's contended that the rent was not in arrears ·and that there was no 
sub-Jetting to the ·appellant, but that he was a partner of their firm. . The 
appellant's contention was that he was not a sub-tenant but the tenant of 
the landlords b=use of a tran.•fer by the tenants of their interest to him, 
and that, there were no arrears of rent. The trial Court held that. (i) there 
were no arrears of rent, and (ii) that the appellant was a sub-tenant, bnt 
that be could not be evicted because of s. 15(2) of the Act. 
In appeal 
by the landlords the appellate Court also held, ( i) 
that there were no 
arrears but (ii) that since the appellant himself denied that be was a sub· 
tenant he could not be held to be a sub-tenant; and, as he had failed to 
p!·ove the assignment :n his favour he was a mere trespasser. 
It therefore 
ordered his eviction on the ground that the benefit of s. 15(2) was avail-
able only to a sub-tenant, The appellate Court, however, did not order the 
eviction of the tenaftts·in-chief. When the appellant took the matter to the 
H'o.h Court. in revision under s. 115, Civil Procedure Code, the High Court 
held, (i) that the appellate Court was not right in setting aside the finding 
that the app~llant was a sub·'enant, and that the find;n_g that the appellant 
was a sub-tenant stood unchallenged; but (ii) 'that the tenants and the 
sub-tenant, namely the appellant, were liable to be evicted because the 
rent was in arrear. 
Jn appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( l) Assuming that the finding that the appellant was a Ires· 
passer could not be assailed in revision, the High Court erred in not .. etting 
as;dc the decree for eviction, because., the awellate Court had no jur!sdic-
tion to pass any decree against a trespasser in a suit brought under s. 28. 
Such a decree against a trespasser could only be passed by an ordinary 
civil court in a regular suit under the Civil Procedure Code. 
It could 
not be passed by a Jud.~e of the Small Causes Court before whom, as a 
special forum, a suit for ev:ction under s. 28 of the Act is brought. 
That section gives power to that Court to order eviction of a tenant 
(along with whom a sub-tenant will go) provided the prO\;sions of s. 12 
or s. 13 of the Act are satisfied. 
As far as the appellate Court was con· 
cerned, thoµgh it was .the Court of Extra Assistant Judge. its jurisdiction 
could not be wider than that of the trial ~urt. [347H; 348A·D] 
(2) Even on the assumption that the appellant was a sub-tenant the 
High Court should have held that the appellate Court had no jurisdiction 
344 
SUPRBMB COURT RBPORTS 
(1967] 3 s.c.R. 
to order the appellant's oviction wnen there was no order evicting the 
ten.ant.t-ln-chief. 
(3480] 
Under the Act, the landlord cannot suo a sub-tenant alone for eviction. 
He has to sue the tenant, and if ho succeeds agitlnst the tenant, the sub· 
tenant would be evicted along with the tenant-in-chief, unless he can take 
advantage of some provision of the Act. [348F] 
( 3) It could not be said that the Interest of the tenants-in-chief was 
determined by the notice given by the landlords, that thereupon the appel-
lant, who was a sub-tenant, became a tenant by virtue Qf s. 14 and that 
therefore, it was unnecessary to 
order the 
eviction of the tenants-in-
chief. 
[3490, Fl 
Section 14 would come into play in favour of t!he sub-tenant only after 
the tenancy of the contractual tenant has been determined by notice QJld the 
contractual tenant has been ordered to be evicted under s. 28 of th• 
Act on any of the grounds in ss. 12 or 13. Till that event

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