Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, V. BHARGAVA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
Hiralal Vallabbram, Appellant
Versus
Sheth Knsturbhai Lalbhai and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 695 of 1965,
D/-31-3-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Purshottam Trikamdas, Senior Advocate (Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Solicitor General of India (Mr. G. L. Sanghi, Advocate, and Mr. B. R. Agarwala, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co. with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
RENT CONTROL - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - S. 14 - DETERMINATION OF TENANCY - SUB-TENANT BECOMING TENANT OF LANDLORD - CONDITIONS - S. 28 - JURISDICTION OF SMALL CAUSE COURT TO EVICT TRESPASSER.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was brought by the respondents against the appellant and three others in the Court of Judge Small Causes at Ahmedabad under S. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Act). The case of the respondents was that the other three persons who were defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were the tenants-in-chief of the premises while the present appellant who was defendant No. 4 was their sub-tenant. The respondents had given notice to the tenants-in-chief terminating the tenancy and asked them to vacate the premises from after November 30, 1956, which was the end of the month of tenancy. The suit was filed on March 1, 1957 and was based on two grounds, namely, (i) that the rent had not been paid for six-months, and (ii) that there had been unlawful sub-letting by the tenants-in-chief to the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The trial Court held that the tenants-in-chief were not in arrears, that the standard rent of the premises was the same as the contractual rent of Rs. 26/- per mensem, that the tenants-in-chief had sub-let the premises to the appellant, and that there was no assignment in favour of the appellant by the tenants-in-chief of their interest. The appellate court held that there were no arrears, but that the appellant was not a sub-tenant and was therefore a trespasser. The High Court held that the appellate court was wrong in setting aside the finding that the appellant was a sub-tenant, and that the appellant was entitled to contend that he was protected under S. 15 (2) of the Act. The High Court also held that the tenants-in-chief were in arrears and were liable to ejectment under the Act, and that the appellant would have to go with them.
Issues: 1. Whether the tenants-in-chief were in arrears of rent? 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to possession from the appellant on the ground that he was not a sub-tenant and also on the ground that he was not protected under S. 15 (2) of the Act as amended in 1959?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellate court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for ejectment against the appellant in the manner in which it did so, as the finding that the appellant was a trespasser deprived the court of jurisdiction under the Act to pass a decree for ejectment against a trespasser. 2. The appellate court also had no jurisdiction to order the ejectment merely of the sub-tenant, as the tenants-in-chief had not been ejected and the appellant could not be deemed to be a tenant-in-chief under S. 14 of the Act. 3. The High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent finding of the trial Court and the appellate court that no arrears were due.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Judgment of the High Court and the appellate court set aside. Judgment of the trial Court restored.
Judgment
WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by Special leave against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court. Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. A suit was brought by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) against the appellant and three others in the Court of Judge Small Causes at Ahmedabad under S. 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, No. LVII of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The case of the respondents was that the other three persons who were defendants Nos. I to 3 were the tenants in chief of the premises while the present appellant who was defendant No. 4 was their sub-tenant. The respondents had given notice to the tenants-in-chief terminating the tenancy and asked them to vacate the premises from after November 30, 1956, which was the end of the month of tenancy. The suit was filed on March 1, 1957 and was based on two grounds, namely, (i) that the rent had not been paid for six-months, and (ii) that there had been unlawful sub-letting by the tenants-in-chief to the appellant. The suit was resisted by the three tenants-in-chief. One of them took the defence that the premises had been taken by a firm at a time when it consisted of the three defendants. But later defendant No 1 no longer remained a partner of the firm and had nothing to do with the premises and the suit against him was not maintainable. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contended the rent claimed (i.e. Rs. 26/-) was excessive and prayed that standard rent should be fixed for the premises. These defendants further said that defendant No. 1 was no longer a partner of the firm and that in his place defendant No. 4 (i.e. the present appellant) had become partner. Thus defandants Nos. 2 and 3 denied that there was any sub-letting, unlawful or otherwise, to the appellant. It was further stated that the rent due had been deposited on the first date of hearing and in consequence there were no arrears due to the respondents. The appellant also filed a written-statement. He denied that he was a sub-tenant but his case was that the entire interest of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in the business along with the interest in the premises had been transferred to him and he was thus the tenant of the respondents and not a sub-tenant. He further said that the arrears of rent had been paid into court and thus there were no arrears due to the respondents.
2. On these pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues. The first issue was whether defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were in arrears and it was held that they were not in arrears. The second issue was about the standard rent of the premises and the trial Court held that it was the same as the contractul rent .namely, Rs. 26/- per mensem. The third issue was whether defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had sub-let the premises and the fourth issue was whether there was an assignment in favour of the present appellant by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 of their interest. The trial Court held that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had sub-let the premises to the present appellant and did not accept the contention of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 about partnership or of the appellant about assignment. Finaly the trial Court held on the basis of the amendment of the Act in 1959 that there could be no eviction. It therefore dismissed the suit against all the four defendants, namely, the three tenants-in-chief and the appellant so far as eviction was concerned. It further ordered the tenants-in-chief to pay rent from September 1, 1956 upto date at the rate of Rs. 26/- per mensem. It further said that the amount of rent had been deposited by the tenants in Court and should be taken away by the respondents with the rider that in case the amount fell short the respondents would be at liberty to recover the deficiency if any from the person and property of the tenants-in-chief. Finally the suit was dismissed in toto against the present appellant.
3. The respondents then went in appeal against
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
