YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS. versus JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 1135 · Decided: 21-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1135
YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE & ORS.
v.
JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2855-2856 of 2011)
MARCH 21, 2023
[SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.]
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act,
1947 – ss.13(1)(e) and 15 – Eviction under – Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2,
the predecessors-in-title of the appellants filed suit for recovery of
possession of the leased premises from the tenant – It was their case
that the tenant parted with the running of the hotel/premises and
possession of the same was given to a third person – Lease deed
recorded that business of hotel was the independent business of the
tenant and he would not assign the business or transfer the same to
any third person – Trial Court decreed suit on the ground of creation
of sub-tenancy – Judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in
Appellate Court – High Court held that the legal possession remained
with the tenant and mere creation of a partnership agreement by
the tenant for the purpose of jointly carrying on business in the
leased premises would not amount to sub-letting – Decree of eviction/
possession was set aside – On appeal, held: Tenant did not stop
short at executing the partnership agreement but went on to execute
the assignment agreement, whereby he assigned his hotel business
in the leased premises to a third person and received earnest money
– The very act of execution of this document was sufficient in itself
to complete the breach of the lease condition and the statutory
mandate u/ss. 13(1)(e) and 15(1) – Therefore, judgment of High
Court set aside – Judgment of trial Court and Appellate Court
affirmed.
Allowing the appeals and I.As, the Court
HELD 1. The Lease Deed is stated to have recorded
unequivocally in page 4 that the business of Hotel is the
independent business of the tenant and that he would not assign
the business and would not allow third persons to conduct the
said business in any way nor would he transfer the said business
in any way in favour of a third person. [Para 21][1145-C]
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 1135
1135
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1136
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
2. Given the clear proscription in the lease deed, duly
endorsed by the explicit language of Sections 13(1)(e) and 15(1)
of the Act of 1947, the very execution of the assignment agreement
dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49), whereby the tenant admittedly
assigned his business in the leasehold premises in favour of a
third person for ` 2,00,000/- and accepted a sum of ` 50,000/- as
earnest money, was sufficient in itself to establish transgression
of the lease condition and the statutory mandate. This court has
earlier laid down the principle that the mere execution of a
genuine partnership deed by a tenant, whereby he/she converted
a sole proprietary concern into a partnership business, while
continuing to actively participate in the business and retaining
control over the tenanted premises wherein the business is being
run, would not amount to sub-letting. However, that principle
has no role to play in the case on hand. Tenant did not stop short
at executing the partnership agreement dated 01.01.1985
(Exh.48) but went on to execute the assignment agreement dated
15.01.1985 (Exh.49), whereby he assigned his hotel business in
the leased premises to a third person and received earnest money
also. The very act of execution of this document was sufficient in
itself to complete the breach of the lease condition and the
statutory mandate and did not require anything further. [Para
22][1145-E-H]
Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam and Others (2004) 4
SCC 794 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 610; Mahendra Saree
Emporium (II) v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 1 SCC
481 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 931 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2004 ] 1 Suppl. SCR 610
 referred to
Para 22
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 931
referred to
Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2855-
2856 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2008 of the High Court
of Bombay in WP No.1067 of 1992 and dated 09.09.2009 in RP No.75
of 2009.
With
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1137
I.A. Nos. 89837-89838 of 2021 and 38142-38143 of 2023.
Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv., Ms. Gwen Karthika, Ms. Abha R.
Sharma, Advs. for the Appellants.
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Adv. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KUMAR, J.
1. These civil appeals arise out of the judgment dated 03.12.2008
of the Bombay High Court, allowing Writ Petition No. 1067 of 1992, and
its later judgment dated 09.09.2009, di

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