LexROOP CHAND versus GOPI CHAND THALIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H ROOP CHAND v. GOPI CHAND THALIA MARCH 29, 1989 [R.S. PATHAK CJ AND S. NATARAJAN, J.] Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950: Section 13( J)(e)-Parting with possession; whether user by a Social club amounts to parting with possession-Permission to file additional documents in this Court-No satisfactory explanation for not filing in Courts below-Hence no justification. The appellant/tenant took on lease a building from the respon- dent. In the Deed of Rent there was an express provision that the tenant should not sublet the premises to anyone. However, shortly thereafter a social club came to be opened i_n the premises, where members played cards, chess etc. every evening till about midnight. The respondent thereupon filed· a suit against the tenant seeking his eviction inter alia on the ground of sub-letting the premises contrary to the terms of the lease deed. The tenant admitted the factum of the opening of the club but contended that he had neither sublet the premises for rent nor other- wise parted with its possession to the club. The Trial Court held that the respondent had failed to prove that the appellant had sublet the premises to the Club for rent, and that the evidence only warranted an inference that the appellant had allowed the club to use the premises as a licencee and as such, the appellant was not liatle to be evicted. The Appellate Court held that the evidence did not establish any subletting of the premises for rent, but nevertheless there were adequate materials to hold that the appellant had parted with the possession of the premises in 1'avour of the club and such parting of possession would amount to subletting within the meaning of section 13(l)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 and as such the appellant was liable to be evicted. Consequently, the Appellate Court passed a decree for eviction. The High Court dismissed the second appeal of the appellant. After the filing of the appeal in this Court the respondent filed a civil miscellaneous petition seeking permission to produce certain documents in the nature of the Auditor's reports ~nd the Managing Committee's reports of the club as additional evidence to establish that 184 1 Y- ,. j- ., !--- - - l • •i ROOP CHAND v. GOP! CHAND 185 there existed a stipulation for the payment of rent by the club to the appellant, and the club was bound to pay rent to the appellant for the user of the premises, but such payment was being deferred in view of the pendency of the eviction suit between the respondent and the appellant. Dismissing the appeal and the civil miscellaneous petition, the Court, HELD: (1) On a reading of sub-clause (e) of Section 13(1) it is seen that a tenant will render himself liable for eviction if he has "assigned, sublet or otherwise parted with the possession of, the whole or any part of the premises without the permission of landlord." Consequently, even if a tenant parts with possession of the whole or any part of the premises without assigning or subletting the pre- mises, he would still be liable to be evicted from the premises under the Act. If from this perspective the user of the premises by the club is examined, it can certainly be held that the appellant had parted with the possession of the premises as envisaged in clause ( e) of sub-section (l)ofsection 13. [I88E-G] (2) There is no evidence to show that the appellant had at any time exercised his right to exclusive possession and kept the premises locked and denied the members of the club entry to the premises. [I88H; 189A] (3) Section 146 bf the Companies Act enjoins every company to have a registered office and certain requirements of the Companies Act have to be complied with by the club by virtue of its registered office being situated in the leased premises. The appellant cannot prevent the club from performing its statutory duties so long as the club has its registered office in the premises. [l89B, DI Smt. Rajbir Kaur v. Mis. S. Chokesiri & Co., JT 1988(3) SC 593, distinguished. A B c D E F (4) The additional documents could have been obtained and tiled before the Trial Court, the Appellate Court or the High Court G and no satisfactory explanation has been offered for having failed to do so. Hence there is no justification to allow the civil miscellaneous petition. [l9IC] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.