IMPORTANT POINT
Original tenant had no right to transfer and part away with the possession of the premises to the respondents without written permission from the landlords.

Headnote:(a) C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 – Clause 13(3)(i)(iii)(iv) and (vi) – Original tenant had no right to transfer and part away with the possession of the premises to the respondents without written permission from the landlords. (Para 9)
        (b) C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 – Clause 13(3)(i)(iii)(iv) and (vi) – Mere acceptance of rents by itself cannot lead to any inference that the landlords accepted the rents knowing fully well as if they were accepting the rents from the sub-tenants – The “landlord and tenant” relationship cannot be inferred. (Para 10)
        (2004) 4 SCC 794; (1996) 11 SCC 728 – Relied upon
        (c) C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 – Clause 13(3)(i)(iii)(iv) and (vi) – Sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant voluntarily surrenders possession of the tenanted premises wholly or in part and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof without the knowledge of the landlord – Such arrangement is always clandestine takes place behind the back of the landlord – The actual physical and exclusive possession of the newly inducted person, instead of the tenant, is material – It would be impossible for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the arrangement between the tenant and sub-tenant – Such arrangement cannot be proved by affirmative evidence. (Para 15)
        (d) C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 – Clause 13(3)(i)(iii)(iv) and (vi) – There being no reconstitution of the firm, the new firm is altogether a new firm of which the original tenant is not even a partner – Thus the original tenant parted away with legal possession by inducting altogether a new firm into possession – Such parting away with the possession was without the knowledge and consent and much less the written permission from the landlords – Impermissible. (Para 17)
        1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 866 – Distinguished
        (e) Constitution of India – Article 226/227 – High Court practically substituting its findings for that of the authorities by reappreciating the evidence available on record – Not permissible. (Para 18)
       Facts of the case:
        1. The appellants are the landlords of the suit premises.
        Respondent No. 4, Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari was inducted as a tenant in the year 1974 who constituted a partnership firm under the name and style ‘Bhumi Kalpataru’ and carried on business till 1991.
        2. The appellants filed an application under clause 13(3)(i)(iii)(iv) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order before the Rent Controller, Amravati against the original tenant Messrs Bhumi Kalpataru and its Managing Partner Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari, on the ground that Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari dissolved the firm and clandestinely sub-let the suit premises to respondent No.2 Jagdish Champalal Mundhada.
        3. The case of the appellants before the Rent Controller was that the original tenant firm ‘Bhumi Kalpataru’ had sub-let the suit premises without the sanction of the landlords and the sub-tenants carried on the business under the name ‘Shri Bhumi Kalpataru’.
        4. The Rent Controller upheld the plea of sub-tenancy and granted permission under clause 13(3)(iii) of the Rent Control Order. The appellate authority, however, reversed the findings of sub-tenancy. The appellants preferred Review Petition which was allowed restoring the order of the Rent Controller.
        5. Shri Bhumi Kalpataru and its Managing Partner Jagdish Champalal Mundhada filed Writ Petition. The High Court allowed the writ petition.
       Finding of he Court:
        Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

B. Sudershan Reddy, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20th September, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1206 of 1996 by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur whereby the High Court set aside the order dated 6.9.1995 passed by the reviewing authority granting permission under clause 13(3)(iii) of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rent Control Order’).

3. The facts leading to filing of this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. The appellants are the landlords of the suit premises. Respondent No. 4, Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari was inducted as a tenant in the year 1974 who constituted a partnership firm under the name and style ‘Bhumi Kalpataru’ consisting of five partners and carried on business till 1991. The appellants filed an application under clause 13(3)(i)(iii)(iv) and (vi) of the Rent Control Order before the Rent Controller, Amravati against the original tenant Messrs Bhumi Kalpataru and its Managing Partner Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari, the respondent No.4 (since died) on the ground that Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari dissolved the firm and clandestinely sub-let the suit premises to respondent No.2 Jagdish Champalal Mundhada who deceptively gave similar name to the partnership by prefixing the word ‘Shri’ and it was known as ‘Shri Bhumi Kalpataru’ resembling the firm to whom the premises was let out in the year 1974. The present occupiers of the suit premises being the sub-tenant, namely the respondent No.1 firm ‘Shri Bhumi Kalpataru’, its Managing Partner, respondent No.2 and other partners, respondents 5 to 7 were duly impleaded as party respondents. The simple case set up by the appellants before the Rent Controller is that the original tenant firm ‘Bhumi Kalpataru’ had sub-let the suit premises without the sanction of the landlords and the sub-tenants carried on the business under the name ‘Shri Bhumi Kalpataru’ by prefixing commonly used ‘Shri’ to the original tenant firm ‘Bhumi Kalpataru’.

4. The application was resisted by respondents No.1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 inter alia contending that they were recognized as the tenants of the suit premises by the landlords by accepting rent amount from ‘Shri Bhumi Kalpataru’. It was also their case that there was disruption of relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the original tenant. The original tenant firm ‘Bhumi Kalpataru’ and its Managing Partner, Madankumar Govardhandas Pasari though duly served, did not enter their appearance and chose to remain absent throughout.

5. The Rent Controller upon appreciation of the material available on record passed the necessary orders upholding the plea of sub-tenancy and granted permission under clause 13(3)(iii) of the Rent Control Order. The appellate authority, however, on the appeal filed by the respondents, reversed the findings of sub-tenancy. The appellants preferred Review Petition under clause 21(2)(a) of the Rent Control Order challenging the orders of the appellate authority and the said Review Petition was allowed restoring the order of the Rent Controller granting permission as prayed for by the appellants.

6. Shri Bhumi Kalpataru and its Managing Partner Jagdish Champalal Mundhada filed Writ Petition No. 1206 of 1995 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur challenging the order of the reviewing authority. The other partners were impleaded as respondents. The High Court, relying on the decision in Bhairulal Balmukund Verma Vs. Poonamchand Kasturchand Sancheti,1 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 866 allowed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.

7. Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court committed an error in interfering with the just and reasonable orders passed by the reviewing authority. It was submitted that the High Court c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 689

IMPORTANT POINT Original tenant had no right to transfer and part away with the possession of the premises to the respondents without written permission from the landlords.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Original tenant had no right to transfer and part away with the possession of the premises to the respondents without written permission from the landlords.