INDRA KUMAR KARNANI versus ATUL CHANDRA PATITUNDI AND ANR.

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 10-03-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
L 
c 
D 
E 
F 
6 
H 
INDRA KUMAR KARNANI 
v. 
ATUL CHANDRA PATITUNDI AND ANR. 
March 10, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH AND 
V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provi.sions) Act, 
1950 (West Bengal Act 17 of 1050) ss. 12(1)(c), 13-Sub-letting-
Permission, when necessary-Rights of sub-tenants in violation of 
agreement-If saved. 
Re3pondent No. 2 was a monthly tenant of the appellant on a 
condition that he would not sublet the premises of any portion there-
of. Under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary 
Provisions) Act, 1948 the appellant filed a suit against respondent 
No. 2 for his eviction on the ground that the tenancy had been 
determined on account of default in payment of rent. While the 
suit was pending, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Tempo-
rary Provisions) Act, 1950 came into force. The suit was decreed 
and the appellant took out execution proceedings. The suit was re-
sisted by respondent No. 1 who alleged that he had taken sub-
tenancy from respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 also filed a suit 
impleading the appellant and respondent No. 2 and prayed for a 
deolar~tion that on the termination of the tenancy of respondent 
No. 2, respondent No. 1 became a direct tenant of the appellant 
under s. 13(2) of the 1950 Act and he was not liable to be evicted 
in the execution case. The suit was decreed by the trial court, which 
was affirmed by the appellate courts. In appeal by special leave: 
HELD: The appeal must be dismissed. [334 Fl 
In the case of sut-letting by a tenant of the first degree no 
consent of the landlord to sub-letting is required as a condition pre-
cedent for acquisition by the sub-lessee of the tenant's rights, but 
in the case of sub-letting by a tenant inferior to the tenant of the 
first degree the consent of the landlord and also of the tenant of 
the superior degree above him to the sub-letting is necessary if the 
sub-lessee is to acquire the rights of the tenant contemplated by 
s. 13(2). [332 HJ 
. 
The clause "and the sub-lease is binding on the landlord of such 
last mentioned tenant" in s. 13(2) does not govern both classes of 
tenanci~s. namelv, sub-tenancies created by "tenant of first de~ee" 
and also by "a tenant inferior to the tenant of the first degree' as 
defined in s. 13(1). [333 Bl 
It is not correct to say that the rights mentioned in s. 13(2) 
are conferred upon the sub-lessee only in a case where sut~letting 
is not in violation of the agreement of lease. The right of. sub-ten":nt 
even in a case in which the landlord has brought a smt foll ev1e>-
tion against the tenant under s. 12(1)(c) are saved and the righ'.s 
and obligations of sub-tenants, would be governed by the provi-
sions of s. 13. [334 A] 
In Enacting s. 13 of the Act the legislature has deliberately en-
larged the class of sub-tenants to be prot_ected fr~m evi.ction by the 
land'ords and the language of the sect10n dealing w•th the. sub-
lesso2s has been deliberatelv changed and nroper effect and mter-
pretation must be given to the language of the new sec~ion, [334 El 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1965) 3 s.c.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 125 of 
A 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
June 2, 1959 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appel-
late Decree No. 536 of 1964. 
S. Murthy and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant. M. C. 
B 
Chakraborthy and R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami, ;r. The sole question for determination in this 
appeal is whether respondent No. 2-Atul Chandra Patitundi 
is protected from being evicted by the landlord from the premises 
c 
No. 90A, Harish Mukerjee Road situated in Bhawanipur, District 
24-Parganas in view of the provisions enacted in s. 13(2) of the 
West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 
1950 (West Bengal Act XVII of 1950), hereinafter called the 
1950 Act. 
Some time before 1948, respondent No. 2 was inducted as a ·n 
monthly tenant under Rai Sahib Chandan Mal Inder Kumar, the 
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. One of the conditions of 
the lease was that the tenant will not sub-let the premises or any 
portion thereof. As respondent No. 2 defaulted in the payment 
of rent the appellant made an application under s. 14 of the 
Calcutta Rent Ordinance. 1946 for permission to sue him for 
E 
eviction. The application was granted by the Second Ad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.