The term 'tenant' in Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 includes a licensee who is inducted into the premises and pays rent or premium for use and occupation, and the induction of such a licensee without the written permission of the landlord satisfies the requirements of the clause.

Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - C.P. AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLAUSE 13 (3) (III) - SUB-LETTING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF LANDLORD - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE OF PROTECTION AFFORDED TO TENANT - DISTINCTION BETWEEN TENANT AND LICENSEE - MEANING OF 'SUB-LET' - INDUCTION OF LICENSEE WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION - WHETHER SATISFIES REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE 13 (3) (III) - FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, the landlord, sought permission under the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (the Order) to determine the lease of the respondent tenant, Narayandas, on the grounds that he had sublet the premises without written permission, in violation of Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order. The respondent No. 2, Ratanlal, was alleged to be the sub-tenant inducted by Narayandas.
Finding of the Court:

The Rent Controller found that Ratanlal was inducted by Narayandas and that the requirements of Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order were satisfied. However, the appellate authority reversed this finding, holding that there was no evidence to show that Narayandas was receiving rent from Ratanlal and that the landlord was estopped from saying that Ratanlal was a sub-tenant.
Issues: 1. Whether the term 'tenant' in Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order includes a licensee who is inducted into the premises and pays rent or premium for use and occupation. 2. Whether the induction of a licensee without the written permission of the landlord satisfies the requirements of Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order. 3. Whether the appellate authority erred in its appreciation of evidence and in disregarding the findings of the Rent Controller.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The term 'tenant' in Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order has a wider import and may include a licensee who is liable to pay rent or premium for use and occupation. The definition of 'tenant' in the Order includes a sub-tenant and a person continuing in possession after the term of tenancy has expired, indicating that the legislature intended to protect a wider class of occupants. 2. The word 'sub-let' in Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order is of wider amplitude and takes in the letting even to licensees or their occupation at the instance of the tenant either for some consideration like rent or premium. The purpose of the provision is to prevent the landlord from determining the lease of a tenant who lets in licensees and recovers moneys from them. 3. The appellate authority erred in its appreciation of evidence by disregarding the findings of the Rent Controller and by failing to consider all the evidence on record, including the fact that Ratanlal had not filed any written statement or denied the allegations of the landlord.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The order of the appellate authority was set aside, and the order of the Rent Controller was restored. The landlord was granted permission under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order to enable him to give quit notice to the tenant.

JUDGMENT - 1. The petitioner is the landlord of the premises, being house No. 9/857, located in Pratap chouk Amravati. He purchased the same for valuable consideration on January 27, 1967 from the original landlady one Dhapuabi widow of Deorao. The respondent No. 1 Narayandas was inducted as a tenant prior to the date of purchase and the present petitioner moved an application against him under the provisions of C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereafter called the Order), Seeking permission to determine the lease of Narayandas under Clauses 13 (3) (I) (ii) and (iii) of the Order. To this application he also added respondent No. 2 Ratabla Agrarwal alleging that he was inducted by the tenant without any written permission from the landlord.

2. It does appear that both these respondents were properly served. Only respondent No. 1 Narayandas chose to file written statement. respondent No. 2 i.e. Ratanlal did not file any statement before the Rent control authority and it is patent from the records of that case that he even did not enter the witness-box. He was neither examined by Narayandas.

3. Now the case which falls for consideration in this petition is that the Rent Controller had found upon evidence that this Ratanlal was inducted by Narayandas and the requirements of clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order have been fully satified. That finding is recorded after taking into account the plea of Narayandas and the earlier conudct of the landlady in which she had complained against the said non-applicant under Exh. N.A. 6, that Ratanlal was a sub-tenant inducted on a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- The submission that was made to the controller was that there was an endoresement which cancelled the notice so given and, therefore, the landlady mau be presumed to have given consent to the sub-tenancy. The rent contoller found, as there was no written consent, the requirements of item (iii) of clause 13 (3) were fully satified. Then the matter went up in appeal and the appellate court took the view in the last paragrpah of his order that on the reverse of a rent receipt there was an endoresement to the effect that the earlier notice given by the pleader was cancelled and from this fact, the learned appellate court observed:

".........Though this concellation of the notice cannot be taken to mean that previous landlord had permitted the sub-tenancy, it certainly means that respondent No. 2 is not exactly a sub-tenant of the appellant."

After drawing such an inference from theendoresement it is further observed gthat "There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant accepted the rent from the subtenant for the use of the premises." Further fact that Ratanalal was occupying the suit premises before the purchase was treated as relevant and a conclusion is drawn that the state of affairs of the evidence was discrepant to arrive at a definite finding that respondent No. 2 was a sub-tenant of the appellant and that he was receiving the rent from him. There is some such observationalso that may mean that the landlord was estopped from saying that Ratanlal was a sub-tenant, and that is how the appellate authority allowed the appeal as far as the plea under item (iii) of clause 13 (3) was concerned.

4. Now, in this court, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that this is all against evidence. The material facts which were brought on record have not at all been considered by the appellate authority. He drew my attention to the photograph which was admitted by the defendant being that of the premises, which clearly shows that the premises given on rent carry a big board in the name of Ratanlal Narayandas Agarwal, Oil Merchant, pratap-chouk, amravati. It is fully occupied by that busniess, is clear if a look one takes to what is exhibited by the photograph. In the evidence Naryandas has come out with a case that Ratnalal Narayandas was his friend, that he does not take any rent from him and that he

Click Here to Read the rest of this document