K.K. KRISHNAN versus M. K. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 30-07-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

' ,,.. 
K K .. KRISHNAN 
v. 
M. K. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN 
July 30, 1980 
[R. S. PATHAK AND 0. CilINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
139 
Rent Control /egislation-Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Co11t10[) Act, 
1965-Section 11(4)(i)-Scope of- Tenant-If could sublet the premises with-
out landlord's permission-Section 108 Transfer of Property Act if could be a 
defence to an action for eviction., 
On the ground that the· tenant had sublet the premises without his consent 
the landlord sought the tenant's eviction from the premises under section 11(4)(i) 
of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 
Tile Rent Con· 
troller ordered eviction and this order was affirmed by the Subordinate Judge, 
District Judge and the High Court. 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of tbe tenant that under 
section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it was a term of every 
lease that the lessee might sublease the whole or any part of his interest in 
the property and, therefore, unless the lease expressly prohibited the lessee from 
sub-letting the whole or part of the premises, the landlord could not have 
recourse to section 11(4)(i) of tbe Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : What section 11(4)(i) of the Act provides is that sub-letting shall 
be a ground for eviction but not if it was by agreement of the landlord. 
[1420] 
' 
l(a) What section 11(4)(i) means is that a tenant may be evicted on the 
ground of sub-letting unless such sub-letting is permitted by a term all the 
lease itself or by subsequent consent ~f the landlord. 
If the clause "if the 
lease does not confer on him ·any right to do so" was not there the positiun 
would be unarguable that section 1086) of the Transfer of Property Act would 
·offer no protection. 
But the addition of the clause only clarified that the 
right to sublet could ·be conferred on tbe tenant either· at the time of the lease 
or subsequently but it had to be conferred; it could not be claimed unilaterally 
by the tenant. [142B-D] 
(b) Quite obviously the legislature thought that the tenant, whose tenancy 
was well secured and protected by the rights conferred by the Act should alone 
be entitled to such security and protection and that the tenant should not be 
allowed to profit by the protection given to him by subletting the premises 
' and extending the protection to others beside himself unless the landlord by 
his act agreed to such a course. [lf12F] 
2. It is well settled law that not all the rights conferred C'n the landlord 
and tenant by section 108 and other provisions of the Transfer of Property Act 
have been left intact by the various State Rent Acts and that if a State Rent 
10--646 S.C. India/80 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Act makes provision for eviction on certain specified grounds, eviction cannot 
be resisted on the basis of rights conferred by the Transfer of Property P.ct. 
Section 108(j) stands displaced by section 11(4)(i) of the Act and is no defence 
to an action for eviction based on this section. (143G] 
B 
V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai 'Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745 (a) 1747= 
{1980] 1 SCR 334 referred to. 
CIVIL AnELLATE Ju1USDJCTION : Civil Appeal No. 140 od' 1979. 
Appeal by Special Leave ·from the Judgment and Order dated J 
8,-12-1978 of the Kerala High Court in C.R.P. No. 3450/78. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
P. Govindan Nair, 
Sardar Bahadur Saharya, 
Vishnu Bahadur 
Saharya and Mrs. Baby Krishnan for the Appellant 
T. S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, A. S. Nambiyar, and P. Parmeswaran 
for the Respondent. 
/ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, l-The respondent-landlord filed a petition 
for eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises in dispute under 
s. 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Relllt Control) Act, 
No. II of 1965, on the ground that the appellant had sub-let the 
premises without the consent of the landlord. The petition had a 
chequered career but finally tthe Rent Controller ordered eviction by 
his .order dated July 31, 1974. 
The order of tlb.e Rent Controller 
was confirmed, successively by the Subordinate Judge, the District 
Judge and, the High Court. The ~enant has now preferred this appeal 
by special leave of this CourU under Art. 136 of the Constitution. 
Shri Govindan Nair learned counsel for the appellant submitted 
that under s. 108(j) of the Transfer of Propevty Act, 1882, it was a 
term of every lease that the lessee might sub-lease tihe whole or any 
part of 

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