The court ruled that to establish sub-letting under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, the landlord must prove the tenant has transferred exclusive possession, which was not done in this case.

ORDER :

1. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common Judgment dated 24.09.2021 passed in R.C.A. Nos. 765 and 790 of 2018 on the file of the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court (Appellate Authority) at Chennai.

2. The RCOP No. 1431 of 2015 was filed by Dinesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as Landlord) under Section 10 (2) (i) and 10 (2) (ii) (a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 praying to pass an order of eviction against the Respondents namely (i) Kantilal Lasaji and (ii) Beru Singh (hereinafter called as Tenants) on the grounds of wilful default and sub-letting.

3. As per the averments in RCOP No. 1431 of 2015, the first Respondent – Kantilal Lasaji was inducted as a tenant in respect of the premises bearing Door No.36/3, Perumal Mudali Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai for non-residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs.5,577/- per month. The first Respondent-tenant is running a shop in the name and style of Mahalakshmi Bangles Store. According to the landlord, the first Respondent- tenant is in arrears of rent from December 2012 to July 2015 to the tune of Rs.1,78,464/-. When the landlord approached the first Respondent-tenant, he evaded and avoided to pay the rent. Further, the first Respondent-tenant has sub-let the premises to second Respondent without the consent of the landlord whereby the second Respondent is running a business in the name and style of “Manisha Novelty”. The landlord also came to know that the second Respondent, sub-tenant has paid the rent to the first Respondent periodically. It is in those circumstances, the landlord has filed the Original Petition for evicting both the Respondents on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent and for sub-letting.

4. On notice, the first Respondent-tenant filed a counter statement stating that in the year 1991, he was inducted as a tenant under one Mr. Jograj Purohit for a monthly rent of Rs.375/- and subsequently, his wife Mrs.K.Suguna Devi has become the owner to whom he has been paying the rents regularly. Subsequently, the said Suguna Devi informed the first Respondent-tenant that her son/landlord will receive the monthly rents. According to the first Respondent-tenant, the rent will be sent annually at the beginning of every year by sending cheques for a consolidated annual rent and sent to the Mumbai address of the landlord by registered post. The landlord has been receiving the annual consolidated rent cheques. However, of late, the landlord has been demanding increase of rent and presently the monthly rent has been increased to Rs.5,577/- from the year 2012. For the year 2012, the landlord has received a consolidated cheque for rent to the tune of Rs.66,924/-. For the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2012, a cheque for Rs.66,924/- was sent and it was encashed. For the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 alo, a cheque for Rs.66,924/- was sent. For the year 2015, when rent was sent, the cheque daed 13.07.2105 was withheld without being remitted with a view to evict the tenant. Thus, it is submitted that the first Respondent-tenant has not committed default in payment of rent. As regards sub-letting, it is stated that he used to employ casual workers in his shop and the second Respondent was not the person to whom the shop was sub-let. Accordingly, the first Respondent