LexMAHABIR PRASAD VERMA versus DR. SURINDER KAUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• _.,. • 60'1 MAHA!UR ll,JlASAb VilRMA v. DR. SURINDER KAUR April 7, I 982 [R.S. PATHAI: AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.) Landlord and tenant-East Pun/ab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949-Sec- tion 13(2} (ii) (a)-Scop• of-Sub-tenant-inducttd In a portion oftheprtmJses with the permission of landlord-Whether such subletting became unlawful on dlt1rminatlon of tenancy-Tenant, if liable to be evicted. Evid111a-Tape r~orded nidence o~ly corroborative in nature . • Section 13(2) (ii);(a) of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act 1949 provides that.if a tenant has, aft•r the coauncnccmcnt of the Act, without .the written consent of the landlord sub-Jot tho entiro build inc or any portion the roof tlio tenant shall be liable to be evicted on the ground of such sub-letting. The Act ·- ma4e applicable to tbe Union Territory of Chandiprb from November 1972. /The respondent landlady fil~d a petition beforo the Rent Controller alleg- ing that the 'tenaJ:J.t bad sub~let.a portion of the premises under his occu~tion in breach of section 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act and. that therofore he was liable to be evicted. The Rent Controller ordered bis eviction. The tenant's appeal to tho Appellate Authority and later revision petition to the High Court were dismissed. In the tenant's special leave petilion, this Court directed the Rent Con- troller to record a finding whether the tenant had sub-Jet any porlion .of the .prc- 111ises after April 1974. The Rent Controller found that a portion of the premises was sub-let by the tenant in May 1974. On I.he question (1) whether the exi<tence of the sub-tenant in the premises after the expiry of the contractual tenancy necessarily rendered the sub-Jetting illegal and furnished a ground for <0viction within the meaning of section 13(2) (ii) (a) ol the Act (2) whethenhe sub,letting by the tenant with the written consent of the land-lady during the currency of the tenancy became unlawful and illegal on.the determination of the 'tonancy and furnished a ground for eviction·within the meanins of the section. A B c D B , G H A B c D E F 608 (I 98iJ 3 s.c.ft.. Allowing the petition, HELD: 1. There is no evidence on record to justify the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant had sub-let a portion of the premises in May 1974. [623 E] 2. The tenant has not sub-let any portiQn of premises without the con .. sent of the land-lady after the commencement of the Act and therefore the land- lady had no ground for Cviction of the tenant on the ground of sub-letting within the meaning of the section. In the instant case the written consent to sub-let a portion of the premises as required by the statute had been given by the land- lady to the tenant and, it was in terms of that authority that the tenant had inducted a sub-tenant' in April 1974 when the contractual tenancy was subsisting. Therefore the sub-letting did not afford any ground for eviction of the tenant on the ground of sub-letting. [626 F-H] 3. The crux of the matter is that if after the commencement of the Act, the tenant bas lawfully .sub-let a portion of the premises with the .written.consent of the landlord, the sub-tenant ·becomes a lawful su~-tenant and becomes a "tenant" within the meaning of the Act with the tenant as his landlord and con- tinues to enjoy all the protection available to a tenant under the Act. The tenant who inducts such sub-tenant is not entitled to evict him as landlord of the sub- tenant except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [624 B-G] 4. The argument of the land-lady that on the expiry of the month of April her 'consent bad stood withdrawn is of no consequence because in the ins .. tant case the tenant has sub-let a portion of the premises in April 1974 when ad~ mittedly .the wrihen consent of the land-lady was in existence. The continuance,, in. possession of such sub-tenant in a portion lawfully iet out to him on the expiry of the month of April did not amount to or have the effect of any fresh sub-letting by the tenant at the end of April. A lawful sub-letting on the basis of the provi- sions of the Act does not become unlawful merely because the contractual tenancy of the tenant comes to an end. [625 F-H] 5 (a). Tape-recorded conversation between the husband of the-landlady and the tenant on which the Rent Controller had relied could only be corrobo- rative evidence of conversation deposed to by any of the parties. In the ab
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.