Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 59088
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. Thamilselvi, J
The Thyagaraya Nagar Social Club – Appellant
Versus
M/s.Woodlands Tiffin Room – Respondent
S.A.No.873 of 2024 | C.R.P.(PD).No.2239 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Jothi, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.V. Sridharan
For the Respondents: Mr.P.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel for M/s.Prahalad K.Bhat for R1, Mr.R.Parthasarathy Senior Counsel for Mr.Prahalad Bhat for R1, No appearance for R2
A lessee cannot sublet premises without the lessor's written consent; past acceptance of rent does not imply consent to subletting.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 12 Rule 6 - Lease Agreement - The plaintiff club filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of possession of property based on subletting violations by the defendant under the Lease Agreement dated 28.06.1975. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the appellate court overturned it citing consent to sublet. (Paras 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 35-38)
(B) Key Legal Principles - A lessee cannot sublet the leased premises without written consent of the lessor as mandated by the terms of the Lease Agreement. Claims based on past admissions regarding subletting demand scrutiny to determine actual consent. (Paras 10, 31, 36)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff alleged that the 1st defendant sublet the premises to the 2nd defendant, violating the terms of the Lease Agreement. The trial court allowed the original suit while the appellate court ruled on the grounds of implied consent due to past rent acceptance.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court's decision was reversed, reinstating the trial court's ruling, asserting the 1st defendant’s unauthorized occupation and obligation to vacate the premises.
Issues: Whether a lessee's subletting breached the agreement without written consent? Whether the plaintiff's acceptance of rent constituted consent?
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that a tenant's unauthorized subletting without written authorization invalidates their position.
Result: Appeals allowed; the defendants are mandated to vacate the property.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayer for direction to surrender possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenges to intermediaries and role of trial court. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. details regarding lease agreement and subletting. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. arguments around admission of subletting and contractual obligations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. rulings on prior litigation and statutory compliance. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. submission breakdown and evaluation of evidence. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. legal framework for judgments based on admissions. (Para 28 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. final orders and directions to enforce the judgment. (Para 34 , 36 , 38) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant in S.A.No.873 of 2024 and the revision petitioner in C.R.P.(PD).No.2239 of 2024.
2.The parties are described in the same array as in the Original Suit.
3.The suit in O.S.No.2494 of 1999 was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants claiming himself as the owner of the suit property and directing the 1st defendant to surrender possession on the ground that the 1st defendant has sublet the premises to the 2nd defendant by violating the terms of the Lease Agreement executed between the plaintiff Club and the 1st defendant dated 28.06.1975. The 1st respondent/1st defendant contested the suit by filing their Written Statement. Before the Trial Court, both the parties adduced evidence. Before the commencement of arguments, based on the admissions made by DW1 with regard to the violations of the Lease Agreement as well as subletting the premises and also there are earlier findings in the Civil Revision proceedings that the 1st defendant Krishnamurthy was not in possession of the premises. Hence, the plaintiff filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.S.No.2494 of 1999 under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by amending the Plaint by including the prayer for claiming liquidated damages for the illegal occupation under the 1st defendant and also for mandatory injunction, directing the 1st defendant and their illegal occupation for the unauthorized and illegal occupant in possession of the premises and also filed another Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.2494 of 1999 under Order 12 Rule 6 and read with 151 of CPC, praying to pass a Judgment and Decree in terms of Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC on the admission of DW1 by his oral and documentary evidence to thet factum that the present incumbents are different persons not traceable to original tenancy to the suit premises.
4.Both the Interlocutory Applications were contested by the 1st defendant through DW1 by filing objections. On hearing both sides, the Trial Court dismissed I.A.N.2 of 2022 holding that the dispute between the parties with regard to subletting the premises to the unauthorised occupant under the guise of change in partnership. But, the proposed amendment relating to the relief of mandatory injunction cannot be permitted to introduce that the suit was pending for arguments. After conclusion of the Trial, the relief has also been sought after 12 years from the expiry of the lease period as to be consonance with earlier cause of action. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff preferred C.R.P.(PD).No.2239 of 2024.
5.In respect of I.A.No.3 of 2023, the Trial Court held that the lease period ended on 28.06.2010 but, the 1st defendant has not handed over the possession to the plaintiff. Instead of that, the 1st defendant is subletting the top floor to the 2nd defendant and also as per the admission made by DW1 during his cross examination relating to change in partnership, there was no Agreement with the plaintiff and one Krishnamurthy, who inducted the third parties as a tenant under the guise of partners. Against the terms of Lease Agreement and nearly about 13 years, after the expiry of the lease period, the 1st defendant is evading the eviction process and squatting on the property with abusing the process of Law and the alleged rent of Rs.1
