Back
Allahbad High Court
K.B.ASTHANA
Kunj Behari Lal Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Shivji Maharaj, Birajman Mandir - Respondent
Decided On : 02/04/1972
RENT CONTROL ACT - TENANT - SUB-TENANT - ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT - PRIVITY OF CONTRACT - PRIVITY OF ESTATE - SUB-LETTING - MATERIAL ALTERATIONS - REMOVAL OF SUPERSTRUCTURES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant, Kunj Behari Lal, from an accommodation comprising a building and open land. The defendant claimed to be an assignee of the lease-hold rights from the first defendant, Ratan Lal, who was the original tenant. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was a sub-tenant and was liable to be evicted for non-payment of rent and for making material alterations in the accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendant was not a tenant in his own right, but was a sub-tenant of the first defendant. The court found that the assignment of the lease-hold rights by the first defendant to the defendant amounted to sub-letting within the meaning of the Rent Control Act. The court also found that the first defendant was guilty of sub-letting without the permission of the landlord and was liable to be evicted. The court further held that the defendant was not entitled to remove the superstructures belonging to him on the land in dispute.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant was a tenant in his own right or a sub-tenant? 2. Whether the assignment of the lease-hold rights by the first defendant to the defendant amounted to sub-letting within the meaning of the Rent Control Act? 3. Whether the first defendant was guilty of sub-letting without the permission of the landlord and was liable to be evicted? 4. Whether the defendant was entitled to remove the superstructures belonging to him on the land in dispute?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendant was not a tenant in his own right, but was a sub-tenant of the first defendant. The court found that the assignment of the lease-hold rights by the first defendant to the defendant did not create a relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant, as there was no privity of contract between them. The court further found that the defendant was not a tenant under the Transfer of Property Act, as the definition of 'tenant' under the Act does not include an assignee of the term. 2. The court held that the assignment of the lease-hold rights by the first defendant to the defendant amounted to sub-letting within the meaning of the Rent Control Act. The court found that the word 'sublet' under the Act means letting in by a subordinate, that is to say by the lessee who is subordinate to the lessor, bringing in at his own initiative without the previous permission in writing of the District Magistrate or of the landlord, a third person into the accommodation and delivering to him the possession. 3. The court held that the first defendant was guilty of sub-letting without the permission of the landlord and was liable to be evicted. The court found that the first defendant had assigned the lease-hold rights to the defendant without obtaining the permission of the plaintiff, which was a violation of the Rent Control Act. 4. The court held that the defendant was entitled to remove the superstructures belonging to him on the land in dispute. The court found that the defendant had a right to remove the superstructures raised or acquired by him on the land in dispute, as he was not a trespasser.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the court below, with the modification that the defendant was entitled to remove the superstructures belonging to him on the land in dispute.
2. The facts necessary for understanding the controversy involved in this appeal may be briefly stated as follows :-
The building and the open land appurtenant to it, enclosed in a compound, originally were the property of Chhitarmal, who endowed the same to Shivjee Maharaj. By a deed of lease dated 30-10-1937 the said properties were demised for a period of 20 years on an annual rent of Rs. 108/- to Lala Ratan Lal for the purpose of doing business by installing machinery on the land and raising constructions with the condition that the already existing constructions or the building were to be used by him and on the expiry of the term of the lease the vacant land and the existing building as such would be restored to the possession of the lessor and the lessee would be entitled to remove the superstructures of the construction raised by him during the subsistence of the lease. On 2-9-1952 by a deed of assignment Lala Ratan Lal transferred the lease-hold rights absolutely to the appellant, Kunj Behari Lal, and delivered possession to him. It has come in evidence on record that Lala Ratan Lal had raised certain constructions as permitted by the terms of the lease and they were also transferred to Kunj Behari Lal, who as assignee came into possession of the premises so demised. Lala Ratan Lal did not pay any rent to the plaintiff-landlord after he had made the assignment on 2-9-1952 and the half yearly rent sent by money orders by Kunj Behari Lal, the assignee, as per terms of the lease was always refused by the plaintiff-landlord. It appears from the evidence on record that the last money order sent by Kunj Behari Lal was refused in October, 1965 by the plaintiff-landlord. By a notice dated 21-8-1965, which was a composite notice, addressed to Lala Ratan Lal and Kunj Behari Lal, served upon them on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord, a demand was made from Lala Ratan Lal for payment of the arrears of rent within one month of the receipt thereof and the tenancy was terminated under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the expiry of the period of one month from the service of the notice. Lala Ratan Lal did not pay the arrears as demanded by the notice and Kunj Behari Lal did not vacate the premises by delivering possession to the plaintiff-landlord on the expiry of one month from the date of the service of notice. In the said notice, paper No. 7-A on record, Kunj Behari Lal was described as a sub-tenant of Lala Ratan Lal. Since the plaintiff-landlord failed to get vacant possession of the premises let out, the suit giving rise to this appeal was filed in the court of the Munsif of Chandausi. It was alleged, inter alia, in the plaint that though the lease, according to the terms thereof, stood determined on 31-10-1957, yet no suit was filed because the defendants always represented to the plaintiff's representative that they would be soon vacating the premises and the relations being good between the parties the plaintiff's agent did not file the suit and waited for amicable settlement. Subsequently when it appeared that the defendants had no intention of acting upon their promise a notice was served on 21-8-1965, demanding the arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. On the pleadings in the plaint Ratan Lal, who was impleaded as the first defendant, seems to have been treated some kind of tenant holding over or as statutory tenant and the tenancy was treated as one at will that is a monthly tenancy while Kunj Behari Lal, who was impleaded as second defendant, was described as a sub-tenant. In order to get over the bar of Section 3 of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, it was pleaded that the first defendant was in default in payment of rent despite a demand by notice
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
