The ground of subletting without written permission of the landlord under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, is available to the landlord even if the subletting was made prior to the coming into force of the Order.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - C.P. AND BERAR LETTING OF HOUSES AND RENT CONTROL ORDER, 1949 - CLAUSE 13 (3) (III) - SUB-LETTING WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION OF LANDLORD - INTERPRETATION - SUB-LETTING PRIOR TO COMING INTO FORCE OF ORDER - WHETHER GROUND AVAILABLE TO LANDLORD.
Fact of the Case:

The landlord filed a petition under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, seeking permission to give quit notice to the tenant on the ground that the tenant had sublet a portion of the premises to other respondents without the landlord's written permission. The tenant admitted the subletting but claimed that it was prior to the coming into force of the Order and, therefore, the ground was not available to the landlord.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the words "has sublet" in Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order indicate a state of affairs where a tenant has sublet either the entire house or any portion thereof and has not obtained the written permission from the landlord, and that this condition is satisfied even if the subletting was made before the coming into force of the Order. The court further held that the tenant's plea of consent or acquiescence of the landlord was not available as a defense, as the terms of Clause 13 (3) (iii) are clear and only permit the tenant to sublet with the written permission of the landlord.
Issues: 1. Whether the ground of subletting without written permission of the landlord under Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, is available to the landlord even if the subletting was made prior to the coming into force of the Order? 2. Whether the tenant's plea of consent or acquiescence of the landlord is a valid defense to the ground of subletting without written permission?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The words "has sublet" in Clause 13 (3) (iii) of the Order indicate a state of affairs where a tenant has sublet either the entire house or any portion thereof and has not obtained the written permission from the landlord, and that this condition is satisfied even if the subletting was made before the coming into force of the Order. 2. The tenant's plea of consent or acquiescence of the landlord is not a valid defense to the ground of subletting without written permission, as the terms of Clause 13 (3) (iii) are clear and only permit the tenant to sublet with the written permission of the landlord.
Final Decision: The court allowed the landlord's petition and set aside the orders made by the Rent control authorities, permitting the landlord to give notice to the tenant determining the lease as required by Clause 13 (1) of the Order.

JUDGMENT - 1. The present petition has been filed admittedly by the landlord of the premises, which are given to United transport Motor Company (respondent No. 1) on a monthly rent of Rs. 81/-. It is no more in dispute that the tenancy between parties is month to month and is according to English Calendar.

2. The present petitioner-landlord applied under clause 13 (3) (iii) of the C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, hereafter called the Rent Control Order, for permission to give quit notice to the respondent-company on the ground that it has sublet a portion of the premises to other two respondents. Now this permission has been refused by the authorities under the Rent Control Order on the ground that this sub-letting is prior to the coming into force of the said Order.

3. In this court it is not disputed on behalf of the respondent-tenant-company that there is a sub-letting and in the return the following averments appear:

".........It is denied that the respondent No. 1 has sublet the portions without the permission of the petitioner. The sub-tenants are in existence long before the House Rent Control Order came into operation, and the sub-tenancy was created with the consent of the petitioner."

Then again in para 5 of the return it is said:

"........ Inasmuch as, the sub-tenancy admittedly is created to the knowledge of the petitioner since more than 12 years on the date of the application, the application was also barred by time, and no relief can be given to the petitioner, who was acquiesced in the sub-tenancy, and who has waived or will be deemed to have waived objection if any to creation of sub-tenancy".

4. So, it is clear that between parties the fact that the other respondents have been inducted on the portion of the house is not in dispute any more. The view that prevalied with the authorities under the Rent Control Order is that as the sub-tenancy was created prior to the date of the commencement of the Order, the ground is not available to the landlord.

5. Clause 13 (1) prohibits a landlord from giving a notice to a tenant for determination of the lease except with the previous permission of the Controller. Clause 13 (3) deals with the grounds on which such permission can be sought and can be granted. The relevant portion of clause 13 (3) (iii) may be extracted:

"13. * * * *

(3) If after hearing the parties the Controller is satisfied.

* * * * *

(iii) that the tenant has without the written permission of the landlord sublet the entire house or any portion thereof;

* * * * *

he shall grant the landlord permission to give notice to determine the lease as required by sub-clause (1)".

It is, therefore, clear that if the landlord satifies the controller that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-clause (3) are available, then he has to give permission to give notice so that the landlord may determine the lease.

6. The words of this sub-clause only call for interpretation. The words indicate a state of affairs where a tenant has sublet either the entire house or any portion thereof and has not obtained the written permission from the landlord, the condition is entirely satisfied. The phrase "has sublet" occurring herein is almost pari materia in the legislation, i.e. Rajasthan Premises (control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 and has beenconsidered by the Supreme Court in Gappulal V. Thakurji Shrji Dwarkadhesshji, (Air 1969 Sc 1291) and it has been onserved in that judgment with respect to the same phrase as under:

"The question whether a sub-letting before the coming into force of the Act is within the purview of clause (e) of S. 13 (1) depends upon the construction of that clause. The relevant words are "has sub-let". The present perfect tense contemplates a completed event connected in some way with the present time. The words take within their sweep any sub-letting which was made in the past and has continued up to the present was either before or after the Act came into force. All such sub-lettin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document