P. JOHN CHANDY AND CO. (P) LTD. versus JOHN P. THOMAS

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 29-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.. 
P. JOHN CHANDY AND CO. (P) LTD. 
A 
v. 
JOHN P. THOMAS 
APRIL 29, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965: Section 11 (4)(i). 
Rent control-Sub-letting-Eviction petition-Tenant taking plea of 
implied consent due to inaction on the part of landlord-Held, consent C 
envisaged by Section Jl (4}(i) means consent with some positive act which 
may lead to inference of conferring right on the tenant to sub-let-Mere 
inaction not sufficient to amount to implied consent on the part of landlord-
Distinction between 'Acquiescence' and 'Consent '-What is. 
Evidenc~Appreciation of-Statement of witness-Trial Court appraising 
whole statement including cross-examination and recorded a finding-Finding 
of appellate court based on part of statement in examination-in-chief-Rest of 
the statement ignored by appellate court-Held finding of appellate court not 
a valid finding. 
Words and Phrases: 
Words 'consent'-'confer'-Meaning of in the context of Section JJ(4) 
(i) Kera/a Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. 
D 
E 
" 
In an eviction petition filed by respondent-landlord against the F 
appellant-company on the ground of sub-letting without the consent of former 
the tenant did not deny the fact of sub-letting. Sub-tenancies were created 
before and after coming into force of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent 
Control) Act, 1965. However, it was pleaded that the sub-leases were created 
within the knowledge of respondent-landlord and his predecessor-in-interest. 
As no objection was raised at the time of creation of sub-leases it must be G 
presumed that landlord had consented to the sub-letting. In his evidence one 
of the former Directors of appellant-company CPW-2 stated that negotiations 
of rental arrangements took place in his presence and arrangement of letting 
included sub-letting. 
549 
H 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The trial court allowed the petition of the landlord holding that there 
was no consent of the landlord for sub-tenancies created by the appellant-
company. It considered and appraised the whole statement of CPW-2 and 
recorded a finding that his statement was unwc;irthy of credence and it could 
not be clearly made out from his statement that consent for subletting was 
B accorded.· 
Appeal preferred by tenant was allowed by Appellate-Authority. It 
placed reliance on the statement of CPW-2 by merely referring to a part of 
his statement in examination-in-chief and held that though the sub-leases were 
coming down since long within the knowledge of the landlord yet no objection 
C was raised for 32 years. Thus from this conduct it must be inferred that the 
landlord had consented to the sub-letting. It further held even assuming that 
there was specific stipulation in the contract of tenancy prohibiting sub-letting, 
the landlord by acceptance of rent must be deemed to have waived his right 
to claim eviction on the ground of sub-letting. 
D 
Revision preferred by landlord was allowed by Kerala High Court 
holding that the sub-leases were created in contravention of Section 11(4)(i) 
of the Act. High Court found that the tenant failed to establish that in terms 
of lease it was entitled to sub-let the accommodation. Mere inaction or failure 
on the part of the landlord to initiate any action in the matter was held not 
E to amount to conferment of right on the tenant under the lease to sub-let. 
Against the decision of High Court tenant preferred appeal before this 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1. There is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the 
~. 
High Court setting aside the orders of the appellate authority and upholding 
the orders of the trial court, refusing to draw any inference of implied consent 
on the ()asis of inaction of conduct of the landlord. (560-G) 
G 
2. The consent as envisaged under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala 
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 would mean consent with some 
positive act which may lead to inference of conferring right on the tenant to 
sub-let the premises and mere inaction would not be sufficient to amount to 
implied consent on the part of the landlord. (560-H; 561-A) 
H 
3. A perusal of Section 11(4)(i) clearly indicates that the landlord can 
P. JOHN CHANDY AND CO. (P) LTD. v. JOHN P. THOMAS 
551 
claim possession of the building from the tenant in case of sub-letting by the A 
tenant without the consent of the landlord, in 

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