SMT. SHANTI BAI AND OTHERS versus DINKAR BALKRISHNA VAIDYA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 2 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 02-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MOHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. SHANTI BAI AND OTHERS 
v. 
DINKAR BALKRISHNA. VAIDYA AND ORS. 
MARCH 2, 1994 
B 
[S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] 
Tenancy laws: 
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates ControlAc41947-Sec-
C tions 14 and 15-Held, protection for available to assignees of sub-lessee~ 
Protection available only to lawful sub-lessee~Sub-le:;see cannot create fur-
ther sub-lease-Transfer of PropeTty Act, 1882-Section 108(j). 
The suit property , an extent of 11,000 sq.ft. of land which was owned 
by one T was mortgaged by him to D in 1947 and subsequently leased out 
D by T in favour of S in 1948. Under the lease deed the purpose was 
mentioned as for residence and shops and the lessee was authorised to 
! 
' 
L 
sub- lease. There was also no prohibition against assignment. In 1949 the 
, 
lessee sub-leased the property by a registered deed to defendants 2 and 3, 
who constructed fourteen shops on a portion of the land sub-let to them 
E and let them out to several persons, who in tum assigned their interest to 
different persons. An extent of 4000 sq. ft. was sub-let by defendants 2 & 
3 to S B, and se,·en shops were also sold by them to SB. On 6.U.1952 
defendants 2 &3 flSsigned their rights, title and interest in respect of the 
land in favour of Defendants 6, 7 & 8. 
F 
In 1952 the mortgagee D filed a suit for enforcement of the mortgage 
which was decreed. The mortgagee himself purchased the suit land in the 
auction. The sale was confirmed and symbolical possession was delivered 
to him. 
In the meantime the Nazir of the Court was appointed as guardian 
G under the Court of Wards Act since the mortgagee was declared a lunatic. 
The Nazir filed a suit for recovery of a possession and arrears of rent (Civil 
Sult No. 1142 or 1965) since his demand for rent from the original lessee 
was not complied with. A ground of sub letting was also added. The suit 
was d~reed but the decree of the trial court was revised in appeal. The 
H writ petition filed by the mortgagee-purchaser D under Article 227 or the 
296 
" 
SMT. SHANTI v. D.B. VAIDYA 
297 
Constitution of India was allowed by the Bombay High Court. The assig- A 
nees from the original sub lessee appealed to this Court by special leave, 
claiming the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House 
IW.tes Control Act, 1947 as sub lessees. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The appellants who are assignees from the sub- lessees 
cannot claim protection as sub-lessees. The original lessee and sub-lessees 
are not before the court. It is well settled that in such circumstances that 
a sub-tenant cannot create further sub-tenancy. (301-F] 
B 
Jai Singh Morlllji & Ors. v. M/s. Sovani Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (1973] 2 SCR C 
603, applied. 
2. There is no scope for application of section 15 of the Bombay Rent 
Control Acl Though the parties are afforded liberty to contact out of the 
section, it is only a lawful sub tenant who could claim protection. If In law D 
they are not sub-tenants of the original lessor, this sections totally in-
applicable. [301-G) 
3. Sect!on 14 is also Inapplicable. For the application of section 14, 
there must be a lawful sub-tenacy. This is not so here. The occupants were 
not lawfully inducted as sub-tenants either prior to 1959 or 1973 (the E 
relevant years for the applicability of sections 14 and 15). (301-H, 302-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2006 of 
1981. 
.. 
F 
· From the Judgment and Order dated 15.7.80 of the Bombay High 
Court in S.C. Application No.242 of 1973. 
UR. Lalit, V.N. Ganpule and B. Sangal for the Appellants. 
S.K. Dholakia, U .Bhagat and V.B. Joshi for the Respondent No. 10- G 
15. 
V .A. Bobde, V.D. Khanna, A.M. Khanwilkar, P.H. Parekh and J.S. 
Wad for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
• 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994)2 S.C:R. 
A 
MOHAN, J, The short facts leading to this civil appeal are as under: 
The suit property was originally owned by Trimbak Hari Awate. He 
executed a simple mortgage oii 28.4.1947 to an extent of 11,000 square feet 
which represent the entire property for a sum of Rs.20,000 in favour of 
Dinkar S. Vaidya. On or about 7.7,1948, Awate executed a lease-deed in 
B favour of Shankar Goru~i Gore. The purpose mentioned in the lease-deed 
was residence and shops. Under the lease-deed, the lessee was authorised 
to sub-lesase. The period of lease was 25 years. The annual rent was 
' 
Rs.1,500 payable monthly at the rate of Rs.125. There was n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.