IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of a sanctioning clause in the lease, subletting after 01.02.1973 would be illegal.

Headnote:(a) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 – Section 15(1) – Section 15(1) is an overriding provision – It takes away any protection given to the tenant by any other law, e. g., section 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act – It prohibits any sub-letting or licensing or assignment or transfer of tenant’s interest in any other manner in the absence of a sanctioning provision in the contract – In the absence of a sanctioning clause in the lease, subletting would be illegal and come within the mischief of section 13(1)(e) of the Act – However in view of section 15(2), the provisions of section 15(1) such acts done before 01.02.1973 would not be unlawful and the sub-tenant would not be liable for eviction u/s 13(1)(e) of the Act (Paras 18 and 19)
        (b) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 – Section 15(2) – The expression ‘transfer of interest in any other manner’ is sufficiently wide to include even an oral arrangement pursuant to which the sub-lessee might enter upon the land and continue in its possession. (Para 25)
       Facts of the case:
        This case relates to lease, tenancy and eviction.
       Finding of the Court:
        1. Sub-letting by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2, clearly fell within the protective ambit of section 15(2) of Bombay Rent Act.
        2. There was no material change in the status of defendant no.2 or in the terms and conditions on which it was in possession of the suit land on February 1, 1973 or in the inter se relationship between the two defendants.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals, though coming from separate judgments and orders passed by the Bombay High Court, arise from the same suit for eviction instituted by the landlord which figures in both the appeals as respondent no.1. The appellant in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No.19522 of 2008 is the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai (hereinafter “Mumbai Port Trust”). It was the sole defendant, described as the tenant, in the suit for eviction as it was originally filed. Later on, by an amendment M/s Wadi Bunder Cotton Press Company (hereinafter “WBC Company”), the appellant in the appeal arising from SLP (C) No.36246 of 2010, was joined in as defendant no.2 as the sub-tenant under the defendant, the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai. From that stage, Mumbai Port Trust, the principal tenant and WBC Company, the sub-tenant came to be arrayed in the suit as defendants 1 & 2 respectively.

3. The plaintiff respondent no.1 filed a suit in the court of Small Causes at Bombay registered as RAE suit no.83/197 of 1993, seeking inter alia a decree of eviction, against the defendants from the suit land admeasuring about 3273.394 square yards, situated at Santacruz Estate, Mazgaon, Bombay. According to the plaintiff-respondent no.1, the suit land was given to defendant no.1 on lease for 999 (nine hundred and ninety nine) years by the plaintiff’s predecessors-in-interest under a registered lease deed dated May 10, 1886 1. In terms of the lease deed, defendant no.1, the lessee had the right to renewal but it had no right to assign the leased out land to any third party. As a matter of fact, there was an express prohibition against assignment in clause 4 of the lease deed which is as under:

“4. That they the said Trustees their successors or assigns will not (subject never the less as hereinafter mentioned) assign the said premises or any part thereof without the licence in writing of the lessors their heirs executors administrators assigns first obtained.”

[The only exception to the above prohibition was the right given to the lessee to part with and dedicate some portions, up to a specified limit, from the aggregate of the lands covered by the lease for public roads and ways with the consent of the lessors. But in that case the lessors agreed to give such consent upon the reasonable applications of the lessee from time to time and within the limit (prescribed under the lease).]

4. The plaintiffs sought eviction of the defendants on grounds of breach of the terms and conditions of the lease dated May 10, 1886, mainly the condition against assignment of any portion of the lease hold land to any 1 As a result of acquisition of a part of the leasehold lands and for other reasons, the 1886 lease was followed by subsequent leases in which the area of the lease hold lands was considerably reduced. But the stipulation against assignment on which the case of the plaintiff-respondent is based remained unaltered. In the pleadings of the parties and the judgments of the courts the reference is made to the above quoted clause in the 1886 deed. It is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the details of the subsequent leases. third party. In paragraph 4 of the plaint as it was originally filed it was stated that the defendant had committed breach of several terms and conditions of the lease and had unlawfully and illegally parted with the possession of the lease hold property without any licence in writing from the lessor. It was further stated that by an advocate’s notice dated December 7, 1991 the plaintiff had put on record the several acts of omission and commission by the defendant that were in breach of the terms and conditions of the lease and for that reason had determined and forfeited the lease. Despite the notice the defendant did not remedy but persisted in the breach of the terms and conditions of the lease. It had, therefore, lost the protection of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rate

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2011 Supreme(SC) 393

IMPORTANT POINT In the absence of a sanctioning clause in the lease, subletting after 01.02.1973 would be illegal.

IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of a sanctioning clause in the lease, subletting after 01.02.1973 would be illegal.