IMPORTANT POINT
Where tenant parted with possession of tenanted premises to third party though for a limited period of 4 months and charged rent from third party and evidence showed that tenant had no control whatsoever over the shop, it would amount to subletting, entitling landlord to seek eviction.

Headnote:Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950—Section 13(1)(e)—Eviction petition on ground of sub-letting—Petition decreed by Courts below—Appeal—Concurrent findings that tenant had sublet three shops to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation for period of four months and received rent of Rs. 2100 and that possession of suit shop was with RTDC to carry on business of Beer Shop and during that period tenants had no control whatsoever over shop—No warrant to interfere with concurrent findings of Courts below—Eviction order could not be interfered with.
       Held : The High Court on a consideration of the evidence tendered by the parties herein came to the conclusion that the tenant had clearly sublet the three shops to RTDC for a period of four months and received Rs.2100/- as rent from RTDC. The Court also held that there are concurrent findings that the possession of the suit shop was with RTDC to carry on the business of Beer shop and during that period tenants had no control whatsoever over the suit shop. It was also further held that there is no evidence to show that the tenants were continuing in possession of the suit shop during that period. Therefore, the High Court has concluded that the use of the said shop for a period of four months by RTDC on payment of Rs. 2100/- as rent, certainly amounts to subletting within the meaning of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act.(Para 9)
       Section 13 sub-clause (1), (e) deals with subletting. The said Section says that if the tenant has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of, the wholly or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord, the tenant is liable to be evicted from the premises. In the instant case it has been clearly established by the evidence of the Senior Officer Assistant in RTDC from 1982. It is his evidence that RTDC had taken the disputed shop on rent from 11.4.1991 on temporary basis because in the shop in front of KEM, the repair work was going on. He further stated that RTDC remained in possession for four months on payment of rent.(Para 10)
       For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no warrant to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three courts. However, we leave open the first question argued by Mr. Jain on the interpretation of Section 13(3), (4) and (6) to be decided in an appropriate case and Section 19A of the Act.(Para 18)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.—The unsuccessful tenants are the Appellants before us in this Appeal. The Respondent is the landlord. The premises in question is situated at Station Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-.

2. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the tenants on the grounds of default in payment of rent and for change of user and subletting. It was alleged that the tenants committed default in payment of rent for more than six months. It has further been averred that the tenants have sublet the premises to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (in short “RTDC”) for running a Beer Shop at a rent of Rs. 2100/- per month without taking prior permission of the landlord.

3. The Appellants filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The Appellants contended that they had not committed any default in payment of rent and the same has been deposited in the Court. It was stated that the Respondent-Landlord refused to accept the rent. The same was sent by money order which was also not accepted. Being left with no other choice, the tenants deposited the said rent in Court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short “the Act”). It has also been specifically stated that the premises in question was given to RTDC only for a period of 20 days as the RTDC’s shop was under construction and renovation.

4. During the pendency of the Suit rent came to be determined under the provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. The counsel for the Respondent-Landlord admitted the deposit of rent from 1.4.1991 to 31.12.1994. i.e. for a period of 32 months at the rate of Rs.300/- per month under Section 19A of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no dispute regarding deposit of the rent in the Court.

5. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord on the ground of default in payment of rent and subletting. The Landlord did not press the ground of change of user. The tenants aggrieved by the above order of the Trial Court, filed an Appeal before the Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No.115/1997. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and observed that the deposit made under Section 19A of the Act was not a valid deposit. The Appellate Court also affirmed the finding of the Trial Court on the ground of subletting.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court, the tenants filed a Second Appeal before the High Court being S.B. Civil Second Appeal No.234/1998. The High Court admitted the Appeal and framed the necessary substantial questions of law. The High Court by its Judgment dated 26.8.2003 dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the tenants. Being aggrieved, the tenants have filed the above Appeal before this Court by way of Special Leave. Notice was ordered on the Special Leave Petition on 21.11.2003 and interim stay of the operation of the High Court’s order was also granted on the same date. The interim order was also continued on 26.4.2004 pending further orders subject to the condition that the arrears of rent shall be deposited to the credit of the proceedings before the trial Court within six weeks from that date. On 6.7.2004 leave was granted and the stay was ordered to continue. At the request of both the parties, this Court passed an order on 20th March, 2006 and posted the Appeal for hearing finally during the summer vacation.

7. We have heard Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the Appellants-tenants and Mr. K.S. Bhati, the learned counsel for the Respondent-Landlord. Mr. Jain took us through the entire pleadings and the orders passed by all the three courts. So far as the eviction on the ground of deposit of rent in the Court is concerned, Mr. Jain submitted that when the tenants had deposited the rent by resorting to the provisions of Section 19A of the Act after permission of the Court, there is presumption of compliance of the provisions of Section 19A of the Act and, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 535

Cases Referred (6)