JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

(1) This is a revisional application, which arises out of a suit instituted by the owner of the property against her tenant and others whom she alleged to be sub-tenants. The plaintiff is Opponent No. 1 Opponent No. 2 is the original tenant and petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are original defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who came subsequent to the creation of the tenancy in favour of Opponent No. 2 The plaintiff alleged that the premises were given to defendant No. 1 as a tenant at a fixed rental of Rs. 100/- per month without electric and water charges. The front portion of the premises was to be used as a shop and the rear as residence. She alleged that defendant No. 1 had sublet the property to defendant No. 2 since about May 1958, that she learnt in July 1958 that large alterations were carried out to property and she alleged, on an assumption, that defendant No, 1 had carried out the alterations. She further alleged that defendant No. 1 was making profit out of the subletting and on these grounds she was entitled to the possession of the premises.

(2) The defendants denied that there was subletting. They denied that there was alteration without the consent of the plaintiff and they claimed the protection of the Rent Act. The learned trial Judge held that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were sub-tenants, that defendant No. 1 was profiteering and that defendants carried out permanent alterations in the property. He held defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were not entitled to any notice and, therefore, made the decree in eviction. These findings were confirmed by the learned Assistant Judge, who heard the appeals filed by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant No. 1 separately. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 now come in revision to this Court.

(3) The argument now made by Mr. Kotwal is that on the findings of the Court that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are sub-tenants they are entitled to the protection of the Rent Act. He relies on section 15 as amended and says that under section 14 they become direct tenants on the termination of the tenancy of defendant No. 1.

(4) The trial Judge has found that after the Coffee House was started defendants 1 to 3 effected the alterations in the premises and that they were in contravention of the Rent Act. Mr. Kotwal argues that when the learned Judge said in para 15 that "All this was done after defendants 2 and 3 came there, and this was done without authority and permission," means that the defendant 1 made the alterations earlier but they only compounded the offence with the Cantonment Board after defendants 2 and 3 came there. This is not so. The trial Judge makes it clear in the end of para 14 that the plea of defendants that repairs were made when defendant No. 1s guest house was running was clearly false. To the same effect is the finding by the learned Appellate Judge. This being so, it must be held that defendants 2 and 3 are themselves guilty of altering the premises. Even on merits the finding is justified.

(5) It is true that the plaintiff both in her notice and the plaint said that defendant No. 1 had made the alterations, but she also said that in the month of April 1958 her daughter who was supervising the premises, left India and she received the notice from the Cantonment Board in July 1958 referring to the unauthorized alteration. It is obvious that she alleged that defendant No. 1 made the alteration because of the fact that defendant No. 1 was her tenant but the statement cannot be regarded as an admission, which on evidence is found to be not correct. The finding that the alterations were made by defendant Nos. 1 and 3 is clear and unequivocal and we agree with the same.

(6) The next question is whether the amendment to sections 14 and 15 of the Rent Restriction Act entitles defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the assumption that they are subtenants to the protection of the Act. Before the amendment section 14 provided that all those who were lawful sub-tenants on the coming into force of the Rent Act of 1947

Click Here to Read the rest of this document