SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, S.M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.
Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. and another, Appellants
Versus
Happy Homes (Private) Ltd., Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 71 of 1965,
D/- 23-10-1967.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. T. P. Das, M. G. Poddar, V. N. Poddar, H. K. Puri and B. N. Kirpal, Advocates, for Appellants; M/s. A. N. Sinha and S. N. Mukherjee, Advocates for Respondent.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The tenancy was initially created under a written lease that prohibited sub-letting or parting with possession without prior written consent from the landlord (!) .
The tenant, Allen Berry, served a notice of intent to vacate the premises, which was subsequently withdrawn by the tenant, but the landlord did not agree to this withdrawal and insisted on vacating (!) (!) .
The notice to vacate served by Allen Berry was deemed to have effectively determined the tenancy upon acceptance by the landlord, and such a notice cannot be withdrawn unilaterally without the consent of both parties (!) (!) .
The law states that a lease can be determined by a notice given in accordance with the law, and once such a notice is accepted or acted upon, the tenancy is considered terminated (!) .
The landlord's subsequent act of leasing the premises to a third party indicated the tenancy of Allen Berry was effectively ended, and the tenancy was not revived by the withdrawal of the notice (!) .
The protection provided to statutory tenants under rent control legislation does not extend to those who have parted with possession or whose tenancy has been lawfully determined, especially if they have no estate or interest in the premises (!) (!) .
Sub-letting by a tenant who has no estate or interest in the premises does not confer the rights of a tenant to the sub-tenant under the rent control legislation; such sub-tenants do not automatically acquire the status or protection of tenants under the law (!) (!) .
The definition of "tenant" in the relevant legislation includes contractual tenants but does not extend to statutory tenants who have no estate or interest in the property, particularly when their tenancy has been lawfully terminated (!) (!) .
The protections against eviction and the rights to sub-let are contingent upon the existence of a valid, contractual tenancy; statutory tenants without such interest cannot claim the same rights or protections (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants are governed by the contractual terms and statutory provisions, and any rights to sub-let or protections under rent control laws are limited to those with a recognized estate or interest in the premises (!) (!) .
The appeal resulted in the modification of the original decree, affirming the landlord’s right to possession and awarding mesne profits from the date the tenancy was lawfully determined, with costs awarded in favor of the landlords (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding tenancy law or related issues, please let me know.
Judgement
SHAH, J. :- A building in the town, of Calcutta belonging to the Chitpore Golabari Company (private) Ltd., was lot out under a written lease for a period of twelve years commencing from January 1, 1939, to Messrs Allen Berry and Co. Ltd.- hereinafter called "Allen Berry". Under the terms of the lease sub-letting or parting with the possession of the demised premises or any part thereof by the tenants without the previous consent in writing of the landlord was expressly prohibited. After the expiry of the period Allen Berry continued to hold over the premises. On August 12, 1958 Allen Berry served a notice in writing upon the landlord intimating their intention to vacate the premises "on August 31, 1953, at 3-30 P. M." and requested the landlord to arrange to take delivery of possession. By letter dated August 26, 1953, Allen Berry informed the landlord that they did not intend to vacate the premises on August 31, 1953, as originally intimated or at all, and that the notice dated August 12, 1953, be treated as cancelled. By letter dated August 28, 1953, attorney of the landlord informed Allen Berry that the earlier notice dated August 12, 1953, could not be withdrawn except by mutual consent, and since the landlord had agreed to lease the premises to Messrs. Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. with effect from September 1, 1953, the landlord was unable to give his consent to such withdrawal, and that it would insist upon Allen Berry vacating the premises as already intimated. Allen Berry addressed a letter to the landlord on September 14, 1953, intimating that they were holding over the premises on the expiry of the leave "according to the provisions of the Rent Control Act". On February 20, 1954, the landlord called upon Allen Berry to vacate and deliver possession of "the premises on the expiry of March 31, 1954". Allen Berry failed to carry out the requisition, and on May, 7, 1954, they sub-let a part of the ground floor measuring approximately 2100 sq. ft. to Happy Homes (P) Ltd. - respondent in this appeal.
2. The landlord then instituted a suit against Allen Berry claiming a decree in ejectment in respect of the demised premises and for mesne profits and other reliefs. This suit was settled on March 28, 1955, and a consent decree was passed. The important recitals in the decree were that (1) Allen Berry had surrendered the tenancy by notice dated August 12, 1953; (2) that they had handed over possession of the portion of the premises in their occupation to the landlord; (3) that the landlord will be at liberty either to retain the sub-tenant or to eject him; and (4) that the sub-tenancy had been created without the knowledge and consent of the landlord.
3. The landlord then sued Messrs. Happy Homes (P) Ltd.- hereinafter called the respondent - in the High Court of Calcutta for a decree for possession of the premises in its occupation and for mesne profits. The suit was resisted by the respondent principally on two grounds: (i) that the tenancy of Allen Berry was not determined before the sub-letting in their favour and (ii) that even if it be held that the tenancy of Allen Berry was determined before May 7, 1954, by virtue of the provisions of the West Bengal Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950, the respondent became a direct tenant of the landlord and was entitled to the benefits of that Act.
4. S. P. Mitra, J. decreed the claim of the landlord for possession of the premises in the occupation of the respondent and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 495 per month from March 1, 1955 till delivery of possession.
5. During the pendency of the appeal against the decree passed by S. P. Mitra, J., the landlord transferred the premises to Messrs. Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. The Landlord and the transferee will collectively be referred to hereinafter as the landlord . A Division Bench of the High Court reversed the decree passed by S. P. Mitra, J., and ordered that the claim of the landlords be dismissed.
6. Whe
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.