VINAYKISHORE PUNAMCHAND MUNDHADA & ANR versus SHRI BHUMI KALPATARU & ORS.

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 963 · Decided: 05-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 963 
VINAYKISHORE PUNAMCHAND MUNDHADA & ANR. 
V. 
SHRI BHUMI KALPATARU & ORS. 
(Civil 'Appeal No. 6299 of 2010) 
AUGUST 05, 2010 
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Rent Control - C. P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent 
Control Order, 1949 - Clause 13(3)(iii) - Plea of landlords of C 
sub-letting by the original tenant-firm - Rent Controller upheld 
the plea of sub-tenancy and granted permission to landlords 
under clause. 13(3)(iii) of the Rent Control Order - Appellate 
authority reversed the findings of sub-tenancy - However, the 
review petition of landlords allowed and the order of the Rent 
D 
Controller restored - Writ petition - High Court set aside the 
· order of reviewing authority - Held: The original tenant was 
no{ even a partner in the new firm in possession - It was thus 
not a case of any reconstitution of the existing firm by the 
tenant whereby the original tenant could be said to have 
E 
continued to be a dominant partner of such newly constituted 
firm ·and retained legal possession of the premises - Sub-
letting and, parting away with possession by the tenant is 
inferable from the facts and circumstances brought on record 
- It was without the knowledge and consent and much less 
the written permission of the landlords - The High Court erred 
in interfering with the just and reasonable orders passed by 
the reviewing authority - It practically substituted the findings 
F 
for that of the authorities by re-appreciating the evidence 
available on record, which is impermissible in a proceeding 
G 
. under Article -Q261227 of the Constitution - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Article 226 and 227 - Writ petition - Scope of 
- High Court's power to interfere with order of reviewing 
authority. 
963 
H 
964 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Words and Phrases - 'any person' (in clause 2(5) of the 
Rent Control Order) - Meaning of - C.P. & Berar Letting of 
Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 - Clause 2(5). 
The appellants-landlords filed an application under 
8 clause 13(3)(i)(iii)(iv) and (vi) of the C.P. & Berar Letting 
of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 before the Rent 
Controller contending that the original tenant, a 
partnership firm, namely, 'Bhumi Kalpataru' had 
clandestinely sub-let the premises in question without 
their sanction to respondent no.1, namely, 'Shri Bhumi 
C Kalpataru' of which respondent no.2 was the r.ianaging 
partner. 
The Rent Controller upheld the plea of sub-tenancy 
and granted permission to the appellants-landlords under 
D clause 13(3)(iii) of the Relit Control Order. The appellate 
authority, however, reversed the findings of sub-tenancy. 
The appellants preferred a review petition under clause 
21 (2)(a) of the Rent Control Order. challenging the orders 
of the appellate authority. The reviewing authority 
E allowed the review petition and restored the order of the 
Rent Controller granting permission as prayed for by the 
appellants. Thereafter the respondents filed a writ petition 
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution before the High 
Court challenging the order of the r!3viewing authority. 
F The High Court allowed the writ petition. 
Allowing the appeal filed by the landlords, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is well settled that sub-tenancy or sub-
letting comes into existence when the tenant voluntarily 
G surrenders possession of the tenanted premises wholly 
or in part and puts another person in exclusive 
possession thereof without the knowledge of the 
landlord. In all such cases, invariably the landlord is kept 
H 
VINAYKISHORE PUNAMCHAND MUNDHADA & ANR. 965 
v. BHUMI KALPATARU 
out of scene rather, such arrangement whereby and A 
whereunder the possession is parted away by the tenant 
is always clandestine and such arrangements take place 
behind the back of the landlord. It is the actual physical 
and exclusive possession of the newly inducted person, 
instead of the tenant, which is material and it is that factor B 
which reveals to the landlord that the tenant has put some 
other person into possession of the tenanted property. 
It would be impossible for the landlord to prove, by direct 
evidence, the arrangement between the tenant and sub-
tenant. It would not be possible to establish by direct c 
evidence as to whether the person inducted into 
possession by the tenant had paid monetary 
consideration to the tenant. Such arrangement which may 
have been made secretly, cannot be proved by 
affir

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