Sub-letting without written consent of landlord.

This Civil Revision Petition is by the landlords against the Judgment of the Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Madras, confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller refusing to order eviction of the respondents herein.

The respondent company was occupying premises No. 84, Godown Street, G.T., Madras, as the tenant of the petitioner from 1928 onwards. At the inception of the tenancy in 1928 there was nothing to indicate that there was any written lease between the parties. In 1943 there was a written lease for a period of three years and this lease expired by 31st January, 1946. Subsequently there were negotiations between the parties for the execution of a fresh lease. The landlords who are the trustees of a certain charity, known as Pappichetti Raghaviah Chetty’s charities through the manager of the charities sent a letter to the respondent for the purpose of executing a fresh lease which was more or less on the same lines as that of the previous one. That letter is Exhibit R-1(a). In reply to that letter the tenant, namely, the present respondent wrote a letter. Exhibit R-3 was written by the Honorary Secretary of the charities on 28th of May, 1946, stating that one Sri G. Suryanarayana Chetty Garu has been elected president of the charities and that the lease deed might be drafted on the same lines as before with slight alterations. The draft lease deed is Exhibit R-1 in the case and it contained a clause among other things that the lessees shall not assign, underlet or part with the possession of the premises, demised without the previous sanction of the lessors in writing. The tenant did not approve of this clause and so wrote Exhibit R-2, dated 20th November, 1946, stating that they have sent a copy of the lease deed with regard to Premises No. 84, Godown Street, after omitting the clause relating to sub-letting. It was further stated in that letter that this particular clause did not exist in the previous deed which was registered in 1943 and so it was requested that the new clause regarding sub-letting need not be inserted in the fresh lease deed. Finally, the draft of the lease deed as suggested by the respondent was accepted by the petitioner and the regular lease deed was executed on 28th February, 1947 and registered on 23rd June, 1947. The said lease deed is Exhibit P-8 in the case. It states that the lease shall be for a term of five years commencing from 1st February, 1946. The lease will expire by 31st January, 1951. But before the execution of this lease deed, the respondent let into possession two sub-tenants and therefore at the time of execution of the lease deed, P-8, there can be no doubt whatever that the respondent had sub-let the premises to two sub-tenants retaining a portion for themselves. In 1951 by Exhibit P-1 the president of the Charities caused a communication to be sent to the respondent wherein it was stated that the municipal authorities were revising the assessment and that this was because of the fact that the respondent was collecting rents from the sub-tenants. Further the respondent was asked to give particulars regarding the number of sub-tenants occupying the premises and the total amount of rent collected by them from such sub-tenants. The respondent sent a reply to this letter on 19th April, 1951, giving out all the particulars regarding the number of sub-tenants and the total monthly rents collected. Finally on the 4th of August, 1951, a notice was sent by the petitioner calling upon the respondent to quit and deliver vacant possession of the premises on the ground that the respondent had sub-let the premises without the written consent of the landlord. The premises not being vacated as required in the notice, Exhibit P-3, an application was filed before the Rent Controller which, as already stated, was dismissed and that order was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Judge, Court of Small Cause, Madras.

It is clear from the evidence and other relevant docum