Honble NAOLEKAR, J. – The plaintiff-respondent filed suit against the defendant- appellant for ejectment from the suit premises on the allegations that the appellant is tenant of the respondent in the suit premises for monthly rent of Rs. 35/-; the tenancy-month commences from the 9th of each calendar month; he purchased the suit premises by registered sale-deed dated 17.06.77 from one Jai Chand for a consideration of Rs. 14,000/-; the suit is filed on the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-letting and reasonable and bona fide necessity of residence of the plaintiff. The defendant-appellant denied the grounds alleged by the plaintiff for ejectment. After decision of the suit by the trial Court, the defendant-tenant moved an application before the lower appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC for bringing certain documents on record. The said application was rejected by he lower appellate Court. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of sub-letting which is a ground provided under Section 13 (1) (e), Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short, referred to hereinafter as `the Act) and on the ground of reasonable and bona fide necessity provided under Section 13 (1) (h) of the Act.

(2). On appeal being preferred this Court has framed the following substantial questionS of law :

"1. Whether without specific plea regarding want of consent of landlord for sub-letting the suit premises, no foundation for ground of eviction under Sec. 13 (i)(e) of the Act of 1950, is laid, in view of Sec. 108 (j) of the Transfer of Property Act.

2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower appellate Court erred in law in rejecting application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC filed by the defendant-appellant for leading evidence concerning bona fide and reasonable necessity by holding that the document sought to be produced are not relevant, if so what is its effect on the finding on issue no. 3?

3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the present suit for seeking a decree for eviction against the appellant was not maintainable, on the ground set-forth in Clause (h) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 13 of the Act of 1950 in view of Sec. 14 (s) of the said Act?"

(3). I will take up question No. 1 and 3 framed by this Court first. To obtain a decree under Section 13 (10(e) of the Act it is necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove that the tenant has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord. Under Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act there is no constraint on the lessees right to sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property. Therefore, the lease under the Transfer of Property Act could sub-let the premises let out. It is only by virtue of sub-section 13(1)(iii) and (v) that restriction is imposed on the lessee to sub-let the premises without the permission of the landlord. Thus the landlord can obtain a decree on this ground if he alleges and proves that the tenant has, (i) assigned, (ii) sub-let, or (iii) otherwise parted with, the possession of the whole or any part of the premises, (iv) without the permission of the landlord. Therefore, assignment, sub-letting, or otherwise parting with the possession should be without the permission of the landlord. In Hasmat Rai & Others vs. Raghunath Prasad & Others (1), the Apex Court has laid down that the burden of establishing any of the grounds for ejectment of the tenant under the Act is on the landlord. Before an allegation of fact to obtain the relief required is permitted to be proved, the law of pleading requires that such facts must be alleged and, thereafter, proved. It is well established proposition that any amount of proof offered without the pleading is generally of no relevance. To make out a ground under Section 13 (1)(e) of the Act it is necessary for the landlord not only to plead an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document