IMPORTANT POINT
Important Point : The court upheld the eviction decree based on unlawful subletting and unauthorized structural alterations, interpreting lease provisions to restrict successive subletting without landlord consent.

JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep V. Marne, J.)

A. THE CHALLENGE

1) These Revision Applications are filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissing (A-1) Appeal Nos.396/2015 and 95/2016 and confirming the eviction decree dated 25 June 2015 passed by the Small Causes Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996. By decreeing the suit, the Small Causes Court has directed the Revision Applicants (Defendant Nos.1 to 8) to hand over possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff.

B. FACTS

2) Plaintiff claims to be the owner of Godown No. 63 in Sitaram Mill, Delisle Road, Mumbai-400 001 are the suit premises. By Agreement dated 2 July 1975 entered into between the Plaintiff- Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd and Defendant No.1-MBK Enterprises, Plaintiff granted lease in respect of portion of the Godown No. 63 admeasuring 8800 sq. ft (suit premises) in favour of Defendant No.1 for a period of 60 years at monthly rent of Rs.4,488/-. Plaintiff found Defendant No.2-Mid-Day Publications Pvt. Ltd. in occupation of the suit premises and accordingly filed R.A.E. Suit No. 147A/306 of 1996 on 9 February 1996 seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises on the grounds of (i) unlawful subletting by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 (ii) commission of acts contrary to the provisions of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act and (iii) carrying out structural additions and alterations of permanent nature in the suit premises and erecting structures of permanent nature without obtaining written permission from Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed Written Statement contending that under the covenants of lease, it was entitled to grant sublease in respect of the suit premises and that accordingly Defendant No.1 have subleased the premises to M/s. Mangla International Pvt. Ltd and Ors. who are associate companies having Directors from the same family and the said companies in turn had given the premises on license to Defendant No.2-Mid-Day. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations regarding to commission of act contrary to the provisions of section 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, as well as, erecting of structure of permanent nature without the consent of the landlord. Defendant No.2-Mid-Day also filed its Written Statement admitting its use and occupation of the suit premises from July 1995 but pleaded that such occupation was under agreement with Defendant No.1. Mid-Day also denied the allegations in the plaint.

3) On account of disclosure made by the Defendant No.1 about grant of sublease in favour of its associate companies, Plaintiff was allowed to amend the suit by order dated 7 June 2003 and impleaded Defendant Nos. 3 to 7 to the suit alleging unlawful sublease/subletting of the suit premises by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant Nos.3 to 7 with further allegation that Defendant No.1 allowed Defendant No. 2 to use and occupy the suit premises under some arrangement without obtaining Plaintiff’s consent. It appears that Defendant No.8-Vinod Mahabirprasad Gupta (Revision Applicant in CRA -215/2023) was also impleaded in the suit by way of subsequent amendment.

4) After amendment of the suit, Defendant No.1 filed additional Written Statement. Defendant No.2 also filed additional Written Statement stating that during pendency of the suit, Defendant No.2 vacated the suit premises and handed over possession thereof to Defendant No.3 to 7 vide letter dated 25 November 2005. Defendant No.2 therefore requested its deletion from the suit. Defendant Nos.3 to 7 filed their Written Statement contesting the suit. Defendant No.8 also filed his own Written Statement opposing the suit.

5) Based on pleadings of the parties, the Small Causes Court framed following issues:

1 Whether the Plaintiff prove that the Defendant No.1 has unlawfully sublet the suit premises to Defendant No.2?

2 Whether the Defendants have carried out structural additions and alterations of permanent nature