The subletting of the tenanted premises, which was continued even after the Act applied and there being no contract pleaded permitting any such subletting, satisfied the provisions of section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act.

JUDGMENT - Masodkar B.A. J.-This is the landlord's petition, whose suit was decreed by the Third Additional Small Causes Court, holding that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were not in need of the suit premises and the landlord was entitled to possession because the tenant, since the coming into operation of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, had unlawfully sublet the tenanted premises, being House No. 319, situated in Kirkee, the Cantonment Area of Poona Town. That decree was, however, set aside in appeal by the District Court, Pune, holding that the subletting was in the year 1968 and the provisions of the Act were applied to the area in the year 1969. Thus, the subletting was not unlawful.

2. That order vacating the decree by the appeal Court is challenged in the present petition.

3. The facts not in dispute and as found are that the suit premises were tenanted to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as monthly tenants. The plaintiff served the notice of termination of that tenancy on December 20, 1971, inter alias, on the ground that the tenanted premises were entirely sublet by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3. In the appeal Court, a Purshis was filed that defendant No. 3 was put in the occupation of the suit premises as a sub-tenant in 1968. The appeal Court has found that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act were made applicable by a Notification to the Cantonment Area as from December 1969. Holding that as the sub-letting was in 1968, the provisions of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act were not attracted, the appeal Court vacated the trial Court's decree.

4. The narrow question is whether that order is correct.

5. It is well settled that the provisions of section 13 (1) and the different clauses furnish the grounds on the basis of which the landlord, who is otherwise not entitled to recover possession, is entitled to recover possession of the tenanted premises. As far as the subletting is concerned, clause (e) enjoins that the landlord has to satisfy the Court that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of the Bombay Rent Act, unlawfully sublet the premises or any part thereof. The words “has sublet” are used in present perfect tense and contemplate a completed event connected in some way with the present time. A similar phrase available in section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of (Gappulal v. Shriji Dwarkadheeshji1, to convey within its meaning any subletting which was made in the past and has continued upto the present time and it did not matter that the subletting was either before or after the Act came into force. The terms of clause (e), therefore, have to be understood not only with reference to the time when the subletting began but also when the action is brought and the landlord seeks to satisfy the conditions of that clause. Upon this aspect, it is obvious that when the subletting is with regard to the tenement taken on monthly basis, it is also assumed, and as the facts indicate in the present case, that the subletting is on the same premises on monthly basis. In other words, the sub-tenancy has a tenure of a month which ends by the month and arises in his favour every month.

6. While considering the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, section 11(4)(i), which permitted the landlord to resume possession where subletting of the premises was without the consent of the landlord or in absence of right to do so under a lease deed, in the case of (K. K. Krishnan v. M. K. Vijaya Raghavan)2, the Supreme Court ruled that rights under section 103(j) of the Transfer of Property Act was no defence when the conditions of that provision were fully satisfied. It was there ruled that all the rights conferred on the landlord and tenant by sec-tion 108 and other provisions of the Transfer of Property Act have not been left intact and if a State

Click Here to Read the rest of this document