LexPARVINDER SINGH versus RENU GAUTAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
~
'. .. r,
l.J ~t: , ... .;1 ': •
.... ,··
PARVINDER SINGH
v.
REND GAUTAM AND ORS.
APRIL 22, 2004
[RC. LAH~TI, BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]
Rent. Control and Eviction:
H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987:
Section 14(2)(ii)(a)-Sub-letting-Ground for eviction-8uit premises
was sub-let by tenant-After the death of the tenent landlord filed suit for
eviction of the heirs of the deceased tenant on the ground of sub-letting by
deceased tenant-Suit. (/jsmissed by Rent Controller and appellate authority
D as well as by High Court placing reliance on A.S. Sulochana 's Case (infra)
holding that sub-letting to be ground for eviction must have been by present
tenant and not his pred,e~~ssor-Correctness of-Held: Tenancy is a heritable
right-One who inherite'<J tenancy, also inherited obligations incurred by the
deceased tenant along }Sith the rights he had-Judgment of High Court and
Appellate Authority sef aside;_Matter remanded to the Appellate Authority
E to decide the appeal afre~h after recording a finding on the availability of
ground for eviction un'der S. 14(2).
Section i4(2)(ii)(a)-Sub-letting-Tenant entering into partnership
carrying on business in suit premises-When amounts to sub-letting?-
Principles for determination stated
F
t\,
The appellant was the landlord-cum-owner of the suit premises governed
by the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. It was let out to the husband of
respondent No. 1 under an oral lease. Respondent No. 1 inherited the tenancy
rights after the death of her husband. The appellant initiated proceedings for
G eviction of respondent No. 1 from the suit premises under Section 14(2)(ii)(a)
of the Act on the ground that her husband had sublet the suit premises, which
subletting had been continued by the heirs i.e. respondents Nos. 1 and 2, after
t{!e death of the husband. The suit for eviction was dismissed by the Rent
Co-ntroller and the appellate authority as well as by the High Court in civil
revision. The plea of subletting had not been gone into on merits by any of the
H
610
PARVINDERSINGHv. RENUGAUTAM
611
courts below because of the law laid down by a two-Judges Bench of this Court A
in A.S. Sulochana v. C. Dharmalingam, [1987) 1 SCC 180. Hence the appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Tenancy is a heritable right unless a legal bar operating
against heritability is shown to exist. Thus, the one who inherits tenancy B
rights, also inherits the obligations incurred by the deceased tenant along
with the rights, which he had. It is difficult to accept a proposition that on the
death of the tenant his heirs inherit only the rights and not the obligations.
If that be so, then the heirs would not be liable to pay any arrears of rent,
which were not paid by the deceased tenant [615-D-E]
C
1.2. The judgments of the Rent Controller, the appellate authority and
the High Court which proceeded on the basis of A.S. Sulochana 's case, cannot
now be sustained and deserve to be set aside. (615-E]
Jmdad Ali v. Keshav Chand, [2003] 4 SCC 6358, re,ied on.
A.S. Su/ochana v. C. Dharmalingam, [1987) 1 SCC 180, held
inapplicable and not good law after Imdad Ali's case.
D
2.1. Merely because a tenant has entered into a partnership, he cannot
necessarily be held to have sublet the premises or parted with possession E
thereof in favour of his partners. If the tenant is actively associated with the
partnership business and retains the use and control over the ten~ncy
premises with him, may be along with the partners, the tenant may not t ~
said to have parted with possession. However, if the use and control of the
tenancy premises has been parted with and deed of partnership has been drawn
up as an indirect method of collecting the consideration for creation of sub- .p
tenancy or for providing a cloak or cover to conceal the transaction'hot
permitted by law, the Court is not estopped from tearing .the veil of partnership
and finding out the real nature of transaction entered into between the tenant
and the alleged sub-tenant. [616-A-C)
2.2. So long as the premises remain in occupation of the tenant or in G
his control, a mere entering into partnership may not provide a ground for
eviction by running into conflict with prohibition against subletting or parting
with possession. This is a general statement of law, which ought to be read in
tbe light of the lease agreement, and the law governing the tenancy. The
existence of deeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.