SARDAR TOTA SINGH versus M/S GOLD FIELD LEATHER WORKS, BOMBAY .

Citation: [1985] 2 S.C.R. 563 · Decided: 15-01-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

563 
A 
SARDAR TOTA SINGH 
B 
v. 
)' 
', 
) 
M/S GOLD FIELD LEATHER WORKS, BOMBAY . 
• 
January 15, 1985 
c 
(R.S. PATHAK, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND V.B. ERADJ, JJ.j 
..... , 
' 
Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House 
1Rates Control Act, 1947 
~ 
, Section 15 (2)-Scope of. 
-~ 
D 
Validation of sub-letting by the 1959 Ordinance-Whether sub-tenancies 
permitted by contract between landlord and tenant are included. 
A building was let out to the respondent partnership firm, who sublet 
a portion of a shop on the ground floor to one Manek Chand which was further 
,I. ., 
sub-let by the latter to the appellant in 1952. 
'> 
The respondent filed a suit in 1962 against the subtenant for possession 
E 
of the premises on the ground of unlawful subletting and carryin&'.out unauthori-
L 
sed structurai alterations. The sub-tenant resisted the suit and filed a written 
statement. During the pendency of the suit the appeilant applied to the Court for 
being added as a defendant but the application was opposed by the respondent and 
was rejected. The respondent's suit was ultimately decreed for possession in accor-
dance with a compromise between the parties . 
.... ) 
F 
~ 
The appellant thereafter filed a suit in 1966 for a declaration that he was 
a lawful tenant in possession of the pre1:llises and for an injunction the restraining 
respondent from executing the decree he had obtained against the sub-tenant. It 
• 
was pleaded that he was in occupation and exclusive possession as a lawful sub-
tenant for more than fifteen years to the knowledge of the respondent and that 
the decree in the respondent's suit was a collusive one and that he had become 
a direct tenant of the respondent under s. 14 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and 
Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 
G 
\ 
~). 
The respondent filed a written statement and pleaded that ·they were 
tenants of the entire building and that they had sublet a portion of the premises 
to a sub-tenant who could not sub-let the premises further to the arprllant and 
therefore the appellant's subtenancy was invalid. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
564 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) 2 S.C.R. 
The Court of Smal1 Causes decreed the suit. The respondent filed an 
appeal before the Appllate Bench of the Court of Small Causes which dismissed 
the appeal and affirmed the trial judge's finding that the premises had been 
iublet by Manekchand to the appellant, and that on May 21, 1959 when the 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordi-
nance 1959 was promulgated and sub-s. (2) of s. 15 was introduced into the 
Bornbay Rent Act the subtenant was not in possession. The Appellate Bench 
rdected the submission of the appellant that he had paid rent directly to the 
respondent and therefore had been accepted as a tenant. It found that no rent 
had been paid by the appellant to the respondent after Manek Chand statutory 
tenancy which followed the termination of his contractual tenancy by service of 
notice had itself been tern1inated by the decree tor possession in the respondent's 
suit. It further held that as the appellant was undisputably in possession on May 
21, 1959, the suh-tenancy in .his favour by Maneck Chand must be deemed to 
be a valid sub-tenancy and followed the vi.ew in Josephy Santa Vincent v. An1bico 
I~dustries, 70 Bombay LR 224 while dismissing the respondent's appeal. 
The respondent filed a Special Civil Application in the High Court and the 
High Court set aside the order of the Appellate Bench and dismissed the 
appellant's suit, taking the view that having regard to' certain observations made 
in Jai Singh Morarj; & Ors. v. M/s Sarani Pvt. 
Ltd. & Or.1·, (1973} 2 SCR 
603, an extended construction of sub-s. (2) of s.15 of the Bombay Rent Act so 
as to include a sub-tenaney created by a sub-tenant was 
not justified. 
In the appeal to this Court, on the question whether the appellant could 
rightly claim tenancy rights in th premises and therefore nullify the enforcement 
• 
•
as against him of the decree in the respondent's suit. 
~ l: 
Allowing the Appeal, 
A: 
HELD : 1. There can be no doubt that upon the amendment of sub-s. 
"-' 
(1) of s.15 by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodiing House Rates Control 
Amendment Ordinance 1959, which was brought into force on May 21, 1959 and 
by its related Act, the prohibition against sub-letting did not operate in those 
cases, where the sub-letting was permitted by contract between the landlord and 
F 
tenant. In all such cas

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