1. Sub-tenant claiming status as direct tenant under Section 13(2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, following determination of the main tenancy. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 79
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ
Indra Kumar Karnani, Appellant
Versus
Atul Chandra Patitundi and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. Murthy and B. P. Maheswari, Advocates, for Appellant; M/s. M. C. Chakraborty and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.
Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, M.C.CHAKRAVARTY, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.MURTHY
B.P.MAHESHVARI, M.C.CHAKRAVARTY, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.MURTHY
Under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, a sub-lessee under a tenant of the first degree becomes a direct tenant upon lawful determination of the main tenancy, regardless of the landlord's consent or lease agreement restrictions.
Headnote:(A) West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 - Sections 12(1)(c), 13(1) and 13(2) - Sub-tenancy - Rights of sub-lessee upon determination of the main tenancy - Distinction between sub-tenancy created by a tenant of the first degree and a tenant inferior to a tenant of the first degree - For sub-leases created by a tenant of the first degree, the sub-lessee acquires the status of a tenant holding directly under the landlord upon lawful determination of the main tenancy, regardless of whether the sub-lease was contrary to the agreement of lease or lacked the landlord's consent - The qualification that the sub-lease must be "binding on the landlord" in Section 13(2) applies only to sub-tenancies created by a tenant inferior to a tenant of the first degree. (Para 3)
(B) West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 - Section 12(1)(c) - Eviction of tenant for sub-letting - Rights of sub-tenants are saved even in suits for eviction brought under this section and are governed by the provisions of Section 13. (Para 3)
(C) Statutory Interpretation - When a subsequent Act deliberately changes the language of a previous Act to enlarge the class of protected persons, the new provision must be interpreted according to its own language and not in the context of the repealed Act. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A landlord sought eviction of a tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. During the proceedings, it was discovered that the tenant, who was a tenant of the first degree, had sub-let the premises in violation of the lease agreement. The sub-lessee claimed the status of a direct tenant under the applicable rent control legislation upon the determination of the main tenancy.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the legislation distinguishes between sub-tenancies created by tenants of the first degree and those created by inferior tenants. For the former, the sub-lessee's right to become a direct tenant does not depend on the landlord's consent or the sub-lease being "binding" on the landlord.
Issues: Whether a sub-lessee, where the sub-lease was granted by a tenant of the first degree in violation of the lease agreement, is protected from eviction and deemed a direct tenant under Section 13(2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 13(1) and 13(2) of the 1950 Act create two classes of sub-tenancies. The requirement for the sub-lease to be "binding on the landlord" for the sub-lessee to acquire tenant status applies only to sub-leases created by tenants inferior to the tenant of the first degree. For sub-leases created by a tenant of the first degree, no such consent or "binding" requirement exists as a condition precedent for the sub-lessee to acquire the rights of a tenant. Furthermore, Section 12(1)(c) explicitly saves the rights of sub-tenants even when the main tenant is evicted for sub-letting.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a sub-lease violating the lease agreement prevents a sub-lessee from acquiring tenant status under Section 13(2) of the 1950 Act. (Para 3 )
3. The Act distinguishes between sub-tenancies created by tenants of the first degree and those inferior, applying different consent requirements for acquiring tenant status. (Para 3 )
4. Sub-lessees under a tenant of the first degree acquire tenant status under Section 13(2) regardless of landlord's consent or lease agreement prohibitions. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the decree in favor of the sub-tenant affirmed. (Para 4 )
6. Does a sub-lessee under a tenant of the first degree need the landlord's consent to acquire tenant status under Section 13(2) of the 1950 Act?
No. The legislature distinguished between sub-tenancies. For sub-leases created by a tenant of the first degree, no consent of the landlord is required as a condition precedent for the sub-lessee to acquire tenant rights. (Para 3 )
7. Does the requirement that a sub-lease be binding on the landlord in Section 13(2) apply to sub-leases created by tenants of the first degree?
No. Based on the grammatical structure and context, the qualification that the sub-lease must be binding on the landlord applies only to sub-tenancies created by tenants inferior to a tenant of the first degree. (Para 3 )
8. Can a landlord evict a sub-tenant under Section 12(1)(c) if the main tenant sub-let the premises in violation of the lease agreement?
No. Section 12(1)(c) explicitly saves the rights of sub-tenants even when a suit for eviction is brought against the tenant for sub-letting, with their rights and obligations governed by Section 13. (Para 3 )
9. Does the requirement of lawful sub-letting from the 1948 Act apply to the interpretation of Section 13(2) of the 1950 Act?
No. The legislature deliberately enlarged the class of protected sub-tenants in the 1950 Act, and the new section must be interpreted according to its own language rather than the repealed 1948 Act. (Para 3 )
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J. : The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether respondent No. 2-Atul Chandra Patitundi is protected from being evicted by the landlord from the premises No. 90A, Harish Mukerjee Road situated in Bhawanipur, District 24-Parganas in view of the provisions enacted in S. 13 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act XVII of 1950), hereinafter called the 1950 Act.
2. Sometime before 1948, respondent No. 2 was inducted as a monthly tenant under Rai Sahib Chandan Mal Inder Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. One of the conditions of the lease was that the tenant will not sub-let the premises or any portion thereof. As respondent No. 2 defaulted in the payment of rent the appellant made an application under S. 14 of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946 for permission to sue him for eviction. The application was granted by the Second Additional Rent Controller on September 10, 1948. On December 1, 1948, the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act XXXVIII of 1948), hereinafter called the 1948 Act, came into force. On September 15, 1949 the appellant filed a Title Suit No. 171 of 1949 in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas against respondent No. 2 for his eviction on the ground that the tenancy had been determined on account of default in payment of rent. While the suit was pending, the 1959 Act came into force on March 1, 1950. The suit was eventually decree in favour of the appellant on February 25, 1951. The appellant took out execution proceedings being Title Execution Case No. 39 of 1951 of the Court of the First Sub-Judge, Alipore. The suit was resisted by respondent No. 1 who alleged that he had taken sub-tenancy from respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 also filed Title Suit No. 578 of 1951 in the Court of 4th Munsif at Alipore impleading the appellant and respondent No. 2 and praying for a declaration that on the termination of the tenancy of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 became a direct tenant of the appellant under S. 13 (2) of the 1950 Act and that he was not liable to be evicted in the execution case. The suit was decreed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and the decree was affirmed by the District Judge of 24-Parganas in Title Appeal No. 157 of 1953. A Second Appeal was also dismissed by the Calcutta High Court on June 2. 1959.
3. On behalf of the appellant the argument put forward was that the sub-lease granted by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1 was contrary to the agreement of lease and not binding upon the appellant. It was, therefore, submitted that the sub-lessee did not acquire the status of a tenant under S. 13 (2) of the 1959 Act and the sub-lessee could not be deemed to be holding directly under the appellant within the meaning of that sub-section. The question at issue depends upon the proper interpretation of S. 13 (2) of the 1959 Act which states:
"13. (2) Where any premises or any part thereof have been or has been sub-let by a tenant of the first degree or by a tenant inferior to a tenant of the first degree , as defined in explanation to sub-s. (1), and the sub-lease is binding on the landlord of such last mentioned tenant, if the tenancy of such tenant in either case is lawfully determined otherwise than by virtue of a decree in a suit obtained by the landlord by reason of any of the grounds specified in Cl. (h) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of S. 12, the sub-lessee shall be deemed to be a tenant in respect of such premises or part, as the case may be, holding directly under the landlord of the tenant whose tenancy has been determined, on terms and conditions on which the sub-lessee would have held under the tenant if the tenancy of the latter had not been so determined:
Provided that it shall be competent for the landlord, or any person deemed under this section to be a tenant holding directly under the landlord, to
