LexSHANTILAL RAMPURIA & ORS. versus VEGA TRADING CORPORATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c SHANTILAL RAMPURIA & ORS. v. VEGA TRADING CORPORATION & ORS. AUGUST l, 1989 [M.H. KANIA AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.I West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: ss. 13, 14 & 16- Tentant-Eviction of on ground of sub-letting without written consent- General authority granted in lease deed-Held, not sufficient. Section 13(l)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 ... provides for recovery of possession where the tenant or any person residing in the premises let to the tenant without the previous consent in ~ writing of the landlord transfers, assigns or sob-lets in whole or in part the premises held by him. Section 14 forbids the tenant from sob-letting the premises without the previous consent in writing of the landlord. D Sub-section (I) of s. 16 requires the tenant and every sub-tenant to w horn the premises are sub-let to give notke to the landlord of the creation of the sub-tenancy within one month from the date of soch sub-letting and also to notify the termination of such sub-tenancy within one month of such termination. Sub-section (2) prescribes such a notice E F G in respect of sub-tenancies created with or without the consent of the L. landlord before the commencement of the Act, within the time specified therein. Where there is no such consent in writing from the landlord, sub-section (3) provides for cessation of tenant's interest in the portion sub-let and the sub-tenant becoming a tenant directly under the land- lord in certain circumstances. Clause 6 of the lease-deed creating tenancy for a period of three"' years from 1st May 1948 permitted the respondent-tenant to sub-let any portion of the demised premises which was left unused or surplus. After expiry o( the lease period in 1951, the said tenant continued in posses- sion, and by ho~ over became a month to month tenant. It had, however, created certain sub-tenancies within the period covered by the lease and before the Act came into forcF· A suit for its eviction brought by the landlord in 1960 was dismissed by the trial court. The landlord fded a fresh suit in 1972 on tbe ground that the tenant bad created sob-tenancies in the premises after the dismissal of H the earlier suit. The tenant advanced the plea of res judicata and con- 632 I I • , -~- SHANT!LAL RAMPUR!A v. VEGA TRADING CORPN. 633 tended that it was and is entitled to grant sub-tenancies under cl. 6 of the A lease-deed which continues to bind the parties. Rejecting the case of res judicata, the trial court held that a number of sub-tenants who were in possession of the premises at the tinie of the earlier suit had been sub- stituted later by another set of sub-tenants after the coming into force of the Act, and that the entire premises was let out to sub-tenants which was not consistent .with the terms of the permission as mentioned in B cl. 6. Allowing the appeal, the High Court, however, held that the suit was barred by the rule of res judicata. lo.. In this appeal by special leave, it was contended for the appellants ··'lllf"-that since a large portion of the disputed property was sublet to fresh sub-tenants after the institution of the earlier suit of 1960 there was no c • scope for applying the doctrine of res judicata, and that the consent contemplated by the 1956 Act has to be specific in regard to each sub- lease, which requirement was not satisfied by the general permission granted by cl. 6 of the lease-deed. Allowing the appeal, HELD: I. In the earlier suit all the sub-lessees were inducted during the period the lease was operative, i.e., much.before the Tenancy Act was passed. The question of violation of the provisions of the said Act, therefore, did not arise there. The earlier judgment cannot thus D operate by way of res judicata. [637 A] ·;. >. E 2.1 The provisions of s.J 6 of the Act clearly indicate that permis- sion lo the tenantto·s~b~let in generaUerms cannot be deemed to be ' consent for the purposes ofss. J3 anif l4. [637F] 2:2. The Act contemplates: that while one sub-tena_nt may be evict~d. anothei:illay continu~· in the premises as a tenau"t directly under the)andloril, depending on the circumstances. Therefore, previous con- se'ni in wriiing of the landlord with respect to each sub-letting sepa- rately is essential. Since in the instant case consent of the appellant- Iandlord was not obtained specifically for each of the sub-tenancies, the respondent-tenant must be held to have v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.