IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized subletting by a tenant constitutes a continuing breach, allowing landlords to seek eviction within the limitation period as long as the breach continues.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Revisionary jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) for setting up a challenge to the decree of eviction passed by the Small Causes Court and upheld by its Appellate Bench directing Applicant-Defendant No. 1 to handover possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiffs-landlords. R.A.E. Suit No. 1043/1806 of 2001 was initially decreed by the Small Causes Court on 30 September 2014 on the grounds of bonafide requirement of the landlords and unauthorised subletting. The decree was upheld by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court by the judgment and order dated 31 October 2017. The present Revision Application was filed challenging the said decrees passed by the Small Causes Court and its Appellate Bench. By Order dated 4 April 2018, this Court held that no finding was recorded with regard to the point of comparative hardship and by exercise of powers under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code, this Court permitted parties to lead evidence on the point of bonafide requirement of landlords and on the question of comparative hardship by keeping the Revision Application pending and called for findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court on the said two issues. Accordingly, both the parties led evidence on the issues of bonafide requirement of Plaintiffs and comparative hardship. The Trial Court has rendered its findings on both the issues in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Revision Applicant-Defendant No. 1, vide order dated 22 February 2019. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court has confirmed the said findings recorded by the Small Causes Court vide its judgment and order dated 2 March 2019. Accordingly, the orders dated 22 February 2019 passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court as well as the order dated 2 March 2019 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court are also made subject matter of challenge by amending the Revision Application.

2. On 23 March 2018, this Court recorded a statement made on behalf of the Revision Applicant that it is in possession of the suit premises and no other entity was in the possession. That the Revision Applicants had neither created third party interest nor had parted with possession. This Court accordingly had stayed the eviction decree on the condition of depositing the arrears of compensation and rent and subject to the Revision Applicant not creating third party interest or parting with possession of the suit premises.

3. During pendency of the Appeal before the Appellate Bench, the Appellate Court had stayed the execution of the eviction decree dated 30 September 2014 subject to the Revision Applicant depositing Rs.50,000/- per month towards interim compensation. The said order dated 21 April 2015 became subject matter of challenge by both the Revision Applicant, as well as by Plaintiffs by filing Writ Petition Nos. 5688 of 2015 and 7123 of 2015 respectively. By order dated 28 July 2015, this Court enhanced the amount of interim compensation to Rs.1,20,000/- per month. Accordingly, the Revision Applicant deposited the amount of interim compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- till the year 2018. After dismissal of the Appeal on 31 October 2017, this Court continued the stay by order dated 3 March 2018 subject to the condition of deposit of arrears of interim compensation. After the reference was answered on the issues of bonafide requirement and comparative hardship, Revision Applicant was permitted to amend the present Revision Application and thereafter the Revision Applicant continued depositing the amount of interim compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- in this Court till March 2020. It appears that after April 2020, Revision Applicant was unable to deposit the interim compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- in this Court on account of Covid-19 pandemic an