The Order of the Court was pronounced by

The Chief Justice.-The main facts which have led to this application are not in dispute. The premises in question belonged to the second petitioner V. Sridharan who during his minority was represented by his mother and guardian Navaneeth-ammal. It was only acting as guardian of her son that she let the building to the contesting respondent before us. Admittedly a portion of the premises was sub-let in October, 1947. It was also admitted that the sub-letting was done without the written consent of Navaneethammal, the only person who could have at that time given such consent on behalf of the owner, her son. The property was transferred to the first petitioner before us on 17th February, 1949. On 1st April, 1949, the contesting respondent attorned to the first petitioner. An application was filed both by the vendor and the purchaser for eviction on the ground that a part of the building had been sub-let after the commencement of the Act without the written consent of the landlord. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction but on appeal the appellate authority, the Court of Small Causes, reversed the decision of the Rent Controller and dismissed the petition for eviction as not maintainable on two grounds (1) that as the sub-letting had taken place when the ownership of the premises was with the vendor, the purchaser could not take advantage of that fact and make it the basis of an application for eviction and (2) that the sub-letting was done with the consent and approval of the Accommodation Officer. Mr. Ganapathi Aiyar who appeared for the contesting respondent fairly and properly conceded that the approval of the Accommodation Officer can at best show that the action of his client had been bona fide, but cannot furnish him with any legal support. The only question therefore which falls for decision is whether when the sub-letting has admittedly taken place after the commencement of the Act, without the written consent of the then landlord, that is, the landlord at the time of such sub-letting a subsequent purchaser can avail himself of that sub-letting and file a petition for eviction. It is contended by Mr. Ganapathi Aiyar for the respondent that as the Act was a special enactment and as it was self-contained, general notions prevailing in respect of the relationship between landlords and tenants should not be imported into a construction of the provisions of the Act. We agree. But we do not agree with him that construing the language of the material provisions of the Act in a reasonable manner, anything compels us to hold that a subsequent purchaser cannot take advantage of the action of the tenant before his purchase. The argument on behalf of the respondent was that the landlord whose written consent would save the tenant from the consequences of subletting after the commencement of the Act would be the landlord who has actually filed an application for eviction. In this case, the purchaser was the landlord who had filed the application. He could not have possibly given his written consent to the sub-letting which took place long prior to his purchase. It follows that the present landlord cannot rely upon the sub-letting which took place before the date of his purchase. So the argument ran. We fail to see why we should construe the plain language of the provisions of section 7, sub-section (2), clause (ii) (a) in such a manner as to lead to this absurdity. No doubt the landlord who is seeking eviction must satisfy the Controller that the tenant had done one or other of the things mentioned in the several clauses in sub-section (2) of section 7. One of such things is that the tenant has after the commencement of the Act transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building or any portion thereof. There is nothing from which it can be urged with any force that the transfer of sub-letting must have been made not merely after the commencement of the Act but also aft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document