M/S. S.F. ENGINEER versus METAL BOX INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 1047 · Decided: 28-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 4 S.C.R. 1047 
MIS. S.F. ENGINEER 
V. 
METAL BOX INDIA LTD. AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4189 of 2014) 
MARCH 28, 2014 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) 
Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - s.13(1)(e) - Suit for eviction -
A 
B 
On ground of unlawful sub-letting - Principle of legitimate 
inference - Invoking of - Held: Requisite conditions for C 
establishing the factum of sub-letting are parting of legal 
possession, and availing of monetary consideration which 
could be in cash or kind and which fact might not be required 
to be directly proven by the landlord in all circumstances - In 
the case in hand, plaintiff-landlord let out premises to 
D 
defendant no.1-company exclusively for providing residential 
accommodation to its executive staff and not for any other 
purpose - Defendant no. 1 handed over possession of the 
premises to an employee, defendant no.2 - Handing over of 
possession to defendant no. 2 was in accord with the terms 
and conditions of agreement entered between landlord and 
tenant and, thus, entry of defendant no. 2 into the premises 
was legal -· Trial Court and Appellate Court drew inference that 
after defendant no. 2, employee, resigned from service but 
remained in occupation while he was not entitled to, defendant 
E 
F 
no. 1 did not take any steps to get back the possession - But 
such inaction cannot lead to the conclusion that sub-letting 
was proved - Nothing to show that there was any kind of 
arrangement between defendant 1 and 2 - Non-payment of 
provident fund and gratuity and other retiral dues would not 
amount to consideration or a kind of arrangement - Barring 
G 
withholding of retiral dues, defendant no. 1 had not received 
any thing either in cash or in kind or otherwise from the 
defendant no. 2 and hence, under those circumstances, it 
cannot be held that factum of sub-letting was established. 
1047 
H 
1048 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Rent control and eviction: 
Sub-letting - Legitimate inference - Held: Court under 
certain circumstances can draw its own inference on the basis 
of materials brought at the trial to arrive at the conclusion that 
8 
there has been parting with the legal possession and 
acceptance of monetary consideration either in cash or in kind 
or having some kind of arrangement - The transaction of 
subletting can be proved by legitimate inference though the 
burden is on the person seeking eviction - Constructive 
possession of the tenant by retention of control would not 
C make it parting with possession as it has to be parting with 
legal possession - Sometimes emphasis has been laid on 
the fact that the sub-tenancy is created in a clandestine 
manner and there may not be direct proof on the part of a 
landlord to prove it but definitely it can bring materials on 
D record from which such inference can be drawn. 
Sub-letting - Requisite conditions for establishing the 
factum of sub-letting - Discussed. 
E 
Revision: Scope of - Held: High Court, in revision, is not 
entitled to interfere with the findings of the appellate court, until 
and unless it is found that such findings are perverse and 
arbitrary. 
The plaintiff-landlord had let out the premises in 
F question to defendant no.1-company exclusively for the 
purpose of providing residential accommodation to its 
executive staff and not for any other purpose. The 
plaintiff-appellant filed suit for eviction of defendant no.1 
and its former employee, defendant no. 2, contending that 
G defendant no.- 2 was an unlawful sub-tenant and thereby 
Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 was 
attracted justifying the eviction. The defendant no.1 took 
stand that it had not breached the conditions in using the 
suit premises for the purpose of which the same was let 
H out for continuous period of six months preceding the 
S.F. ENGINEER v. METAL BOX INDIA LTD. 
1049 
AND ANR. 
date of the suit without reasonable cause and the suit A 
premises had been illegally and wrongfully occupied by 
defendant no. 2 against the will of defendant no.1 by 
remaining in the suit flat. It was the further case of 
defendant no.1 that the defendant no. 2, as an officer of 
defendant No. 1 was allotted flat as a part of his service 
B 
amenities. Defendant No. 1 became sick company and 
thereafter defendant No.2 resigned from service. 
Defendant No. 2 continued to occupy the premises while 
the employer withheld his provident fund dues for which 
the Commissioner of Provident Fund issued a notic

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