Back
1980 Supreme(Mad) 472
1981 1 MLJ 354
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.
S. Balasubramaniam
Versus
Gulab Jan
Decided on: 5/12/1980
C.R.P. 1624 of 1979.
A sub-tenant has no locus standi to contest eviction proceedings when the main tenants have not contested the petition and there is no evidence of collusion between the landlord and the main tenants.
Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - EVICTION - SUB-TENANT - LOCUS STANDI - COLLUSION - BONA FIDES OF LANDLORD - DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION - SANCTION - CAPACITY AND MEANS OF LANDLORD - TAMIL NADU BUILDINGS (LEASE AND RENT CONTROL) ACT, (XVIII OF 1960), SECTIONS 10(2)(I), 10(2)(II)(A), 14(1)(B), 19, 26.
Fact of the Case:
A landlord filed a petition for eviction against five respondents, including a sub-tenant, under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a), and 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The sub-tenant contested the petition, claiming that the subletting was done with the consent of the previous landlord, that he had been paying rent to the previous landlord, and that the previous landlord had obtained an order of eviction on the same ground of demolition and reconstruction, but restitution had been obtained due to failure to demolish within the time given by the Court. The Rent Controller upheld the landlord's case on the question of demolition and reconstruction and ordered eviction. The sub-tenant appealed, and the Appellate Authority reversed the Rent Controller's finding, holding that there was a lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the sub-tenant had no locus standi to contest the eviction proceedings since the main tenants had not contested the petition and there was no evidence of collusion between the landlord and the main tenants. The Court also held that the landlord had made out a case for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, as the building was in a dangerous condition and required demolition and reconstruction. The Court further held that the landlord was not required to obtain prior sanction for demolition and reconstruction before filing the petition for eviction.
Issues: 1. Whether a sub-tenant has locus standi to contest eviction proceedings when the main tenants have not contested the petition and there is no evidence of collusion between the landlord and the main tenants? 2. Whether the landlord has made out a case for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, where the building is in a dangerous condition and requires demolition and reconstruction? 3. Whether the landlord is required to obtain prior sanction for demolition and reconstruction before filing the petition for eviction?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A sub-tenant has no locus standi to contest eviction proceedings when the main tenants have not contested the petition and there is no evidence of collusion between the landlord and the main tenants. This is because the sub-tenant's right to possession is derivative and defeasible, and depends on the right of the lessee, through whom he obtains and is in possession. If the lessor could rightly obtain possession from the lessee, the sub-lessee could not stand in the way irrespective of the fact whether he was made a party or not to the proceedings for possession by the lessor. 2. The landlord has made out a case for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, where the building is in a dangerous condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. This is because the Act does not require the landlord to obtain prior sanction for demolition and reconstruction before filing the petition for eviction, and the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to show that the building is in a dangerous condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. 3. The landlord is not required to obtain prior sanction for demolition and reconstruction before filing the petition for eviction. This is because the Act does not require the landlord to obtain prior sanction for demolition and reconstruction before filing the petition for eviction, and the landlord has provided sufficient evidence to show that the building is in a dangerous condition and requires demolition and reconstruction.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority, and ordered the sub-tenant to deliver possession of the premises in question within six months. The landlord was directed to commence the work of demolition of the building within one month and complete the work of demolition before the expiry of three months from the date he recovers possession of the said building.
S. Nainar Sundaram, J.
1. In this revision, the landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" is the petitioner. The respondent herein is the sub-tenant. The landlord filed a petition, H. R. C. No. 115 of 1976 on the file of the Rent Controller of Nilgiris, Gudalur, for eviction under Section 10(2)(i) for wilful default, Section 10(2)(ii)(a) for sub-letting and Section 14(1)(b) for demolition and reconstruction under the Act, against five respondents of whom the respondent herein was the fifth. Respondents 1 to 4 before the Rent Controller were the legal representatives of one Ahamed Hussain, who was the original tenant of the premises in question. Respondents 1 to 4 before the Rent Controller, the legal representatives of the original tenant and who assumed the character of tenants within the meaning of the Act, remained ex parte and did not contest the petition for eviction. The sub-tenant, the respondent herein, alone contested. According to him, the sub letting was done with the consent of the previous landlord Palaniswami Pandaram, who has gifted the property to the present landlord on 25th September, 1972; he has been paying the rents to the previous landlord Palaniswami Pandaram because he had no notice of the transfer of ownership; and the previous landlord earlier obtained an order of eviction on the same ground of demolition and reconstruction and since there was failure to demolish within the time given by the Court, even after obtaining the possession of the premises, restitution has been obtained and the proceedings are barred under Section 19 of the Act. The contest of the sub-tenant was considered by the Rent Controller. He held that there was no wilful default and that the sub-tenancy was with the consent of the previous landlord. However, the Rent Controller upheld the case of the landlord on the question of his requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction and ordered eviction. The bar under Section 19 of the Act pleaded by the sub-tenant was not countenanced by the Rent Controller. The chief tenants, respondents 1 to 4, before the Rent Controller, did not take up the matter in appeal The sub-tenant alone preferred an appeal, C. M. A. No. 38 of 1977 before the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Ootacamund. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of the landlord's requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction and held that there was lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord and allowed the appeal, dismissing the petition for eviction. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority.
2. Mr. N. Sivamani, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would primarily urge that the chief tenants having not contested the petition for eviction, the sub-tenant has no locus standi to contest the petition for eviction and thwart the move by the landlord to obtain possession. The learned Counsel would further submit that even otherwise, the bar under Section 19 of the Act would not apply because the present petition for eviction has the backing of the new cause of action and the tests to be applied under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act get amply satisfied and hence the landlord is entitled to the order of eviction.
3. The primary question to be decided is as to whether the respondent herein, the subtenant, has got any status under the Act so as to put forth any individual contest and defeat the proceedings for eviction by the landlord.
4. A similar question under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XV of 1946) arose for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Govinda Menon and Krishnaswami Nayudu JJ. in Devaraja Bhatt v. V.S. Raja and Govinda Menon, J, speaking for the Division Bench, observed that:
Under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act a sub-tenant as such is
