K. LUBNA & ORS. versus BEEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 967 · Decided: 13-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
967
K. LUBNA & ORS.
v.
BEEVI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2442-2443 of 2011)
JANUARY 13, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 –
s.11(4)(i) – Eviction of tenants – Sub-tenancy – Appellants-owners
alleged that respondents-tenants stopped the payment of rent of
three shop room premises, defined as room nos. 3/471, 3/472 and 3/
476, and it was also alleged that two shops were sublet by the
respondent without the consent of the appellants – The appellants
sent a legal notice dated 15.12.1987 demanding surrender of
possession of suit shop rooms and arrear of rent, and ultimately
filed an eviction petition before the Rent Control Court – The Trial
Court found against the appellants on all grounds except non-
payment of rent while granting a decree of eviction for all the three
shops – The Appellate Authority found bonafide need of appellant
in respect of room no. 3/472 and sub-letting in respect of room no.
3/476 was proved – Thus, eviction was granted by the Appellate
Authority in respect of room nos. 3/472 and 3/476 – The High Court
in the cross- revision petitions sustained eviction order only qua
room no. 3/476 on the ground of sub-letting – Before the Supreme
Court, the appellants contended that u/s. 11(4)(i) of the Act, even if
the sub-tenancy is created in part of the premises, the entitlement of
eviction is in respect of the whole of the premises – The respondents
dissuaded from examination of this plea in view of it not having
been raised at an earlier stage and thus, no factual basis being
laid for the same – Held: On the legal principle, a pure question of
law can be examined at any stage, including before the Supreme
Court – If the factual foundation for a case has been laid and the
legal consequence of the same have not been examined, the
examination of such legal consequence would be a pure question
of law – The finding of fact in the instant case was not required to
be closely scrutinised as the essential facts, which were analysed
by the Courts below, clearly show the existence of a single tenancy
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 967
967
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
– Issuance of a single notice and the filing of a single eviction
petition, albeit raising different grounds for different portions of
the premises, is an undisputed fact – Further, under the statute,
sub-letting of any part of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction
from the whole premises – Thus, the appellants entitled to a decree
of eviction for the entire premises, mentioned as tenanted premises,
on the ground of the respondents having sub-let a part of the
premises.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The judicial pronouncements of this Court in M.
Meeramytheen & Ors. v. K. Parameswaran Pillai & Ors. which
deals with the very Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
Act, 1965. In the facts of that case, one single tenancy was created
in relation to two shop rooms, while sub-tenancy was created in
respect of one of the two shop rooms by the tenant. Much later,
a partition was effected by virtue of which the two shops were
allotted to the share of different co-sharers who joined together
in the suit proceedings seeking eviction of tenants as sub-lessees.
It was held that it could not be said that on account of the partition,
the original tenancy was divided and therefore, eviction could be
ordered only in respect of one of the rooms that was actually sub-
let, more so when the cause of action had arisen prior to the
partition. The appellate court and the High Court, having granted
a decree of eviction only with respect to one shop, was stated to
be a legal error committed and, thus, eviction was granted in
respect of both the shops on the ground that one of the shops
was sub-leased, in view of the provision of the Act. [Para 13]
[974-C-E]
M. Meeramytheen & Ors. v. K. Parameswaran Pillai &
Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 359 – relied on.
2. The aforesaid judgment, covers the legal principle on all
fours. A bare reading of sub-para (i) of sub-section (4) of Section
11 of the said Act leaves no manner of doubt that the cause arises
upon the tenant transferring his rights under a lease and sub-lets
the entire building “or any portion thereof”, if the lease does not
confer on him any right to do so. The proviso requires that the
landlord should have sent a registered notice to the tenant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
969
intimating the contravention of the said condition o

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