Important Point
Brevity should be adhered to while drafting pleadings; brevity should not be at the cost of setting out necessary facts, but it does not mean niggling in the pleadings.

Judgment

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

Appellants are landlords of one Ms. Shanta Sabnis. A building situate at Benham Hall Lane, Girgaum, Mumbai is owned by the appellants and was let out to the aforementioned Shanta Sabnis. Appellants succeeded in obtaining an order of eviction from the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, on the ground, inter alia, that the premises were sub-let to respondents 1 and 2. That order was confirmed in appeal. But the High Court of Bombay interfered with it under Article 227 of the Constitu­tion of India and quashed the decree and eviction. Hence, the land­lords have filed the Special Leave Petition.

2. Some more facts are these:

Shanta Sabnis, the original tenant, died and her mother, who was living with her, also died later. Second respondent claimed to be the daughter of Shanta Sabnis. Appellants filed a suit for eviction on different grounds, main among them was that the premises were sub-let to the fourth respondent (who was third defendant in the suit). During the pendency of the suit landlords got the plaint amended for incorpo­rating a further allegation that first respondent and his sister were inducted into the building after institution of the suit without the consent of the landlords.

3. Second respondent (who was arrayed as second defendant in the suit) contended that she is the only daughter of Shanta Sabnis and hence the tenancy right has devolved on her with the death of her mother. She disputed the contention of the appellants that the building had been sublet to the third respondent but stated that she was allowed by her mother and grand-mother to reside in the building for the purpose of looking after her mother and grand-mother who were old and sick.

4. First respondent admitted that he is in possession of the suit premises. But he contended that he was permitted by the tenant to occupy the building on leave and licence basis under an agreement dated 16.10.1971 and he continued in such possession on 1.2.1973 and also thereafter. So the first respondent claimed protection under Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short the ‘Act’).

5. Trial Court found that second defendant is the daughter of the original tenant Shanta Sabnis and that the case of landlords regarding sub-letting to the third defendant is not a subsisting issue to be considered because the third defendant had already vacated the prem­ises. Trial Court further found that first respondent was inducted into possession by the second defendant. The claim made by first respondent for protection under Section 15A of the Act was repelled and the trial Court concluded that induction of first respondent into the building amounted to unlawful sub-letting. On the strength of the above finding a decree for eviction was granted.

6. The appellate authority under the Act confirmed the decree for eviction, but went a step further by holding that sub-letting to third defendant would also enure to the ground of eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act despite the fact that the aforesaid sub-tenant later vacated the premises.

7. Learned single Judge of the High Court approached the issue from a new angle untouched by the trial Court and the appellate authority. Learned single Judge observed first that appellants have not treated the second defendant as their tenant and secondly that there is no clear averment in the plaint to the effect that the building has been sub-let to the first respondent.

8. The following is the summed up reasoning made by the learned single Judge for upsetting the concurrent finding:

“It is, therefore, clear that in order to be entitled to a decree of eviction against the tenant on the ground of unlawful sub-letting an averment in the Plaint is a must that the tenant has unlawfully sub-let the suit premises. It is clear from the allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs were not treating any of the named defendants as their tenants. The tenant of the plaintiffs viz., Ms.