IMPORTANT POINT
Monthly tenancy is covered by Section 12(3)(a). Landlord will be entitled to eviction and possession in case of default in payment and sub-letting.

Headnote:(a) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 12(3)(a) – Appellant-landlord establishing monthly tenancy – Tenant defaulting for 22 months – Neither paying arrears of rent even after notice nor replying the notice – Case falling u/s 12(3)(a) – Trial court rightly directing eviction. (Para 16)
       (b) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 5(11)(c) – Original tenant running a hair cutting salon in suit premises – None of his two sons ever assisting him in the shop – Both engaged independently – Trial court rightly holding the two sons defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 not entitled to benefit of section 5(1)(c). (Para 19)
       (c) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 5(11)(c) – Sub-letting – Appellant-landlord, after death of original tenant, finding defendant No. 2 running the shop – No evidence to show that defendant No. 2 was a partner or paid worker – Trial court rightly held him to be sub-tenant – Appellant-landlord entitled to eviction and possession of suit premises. (Para 20)
       Facts of the case:
       The ground floor of the suit premises was let out to the first respondent the original tenant in the year 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The original tenant was running a hair cutting salon in the rented premises. The original tenant was not in the habit of paying the rent regularly, that is, on the due date of each month and he was in arrears of rent for the period ranging from 06.07.1974 to 05.05.1976, amounting to Rs.660/ for twenty two months.
       On wilful default in payment of rent, a notice was duly served upon the original tenant to make payment of the above arrears within one month from the date of receipt of notice and the tenant has neither paid the arrears nor sent any reply.
       The appellant-plaintiff then filed Rent Suit seeking possession of the property and arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the original tenant and his legal representatives viz., his wife and two sons namely, Dahyalal and Bhogilal were brought on record as defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/3.
       After the death of the original tenant-defendant No.1 the appellant-plaintiff found that one Somabhai Dahiyabhai Valand was inducted into the suit premises by illegal sub-letting of the tenanted premises.
       The Small Causes Court allowed the rent suit.
       The legal representatives of the original tenant preferred Civil Appeal which was allowed. The appellate court reversed the order of eviction passed by the trial court.
       The appellant-plaintiff preferred the revision before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision. Insofar as the sub-letting is concerned, the High Court affirmed the findings of the first appellate court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 16.10.2003 in Civil Revision Application No.1517 of 1983 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dismissing the revision petition thereby affirming the order of the First Appellate Court which reversed the order of eviction passed by the trial court. Vide impugned order, the High Court declined to order eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting without the permission of the landlord.

2. Brief facts which led to filing of this appeal are as follows: The appellant herein is the owner of the property known as “Radha Bhuvan” a two storeyed building situated on Vadi Rang Mahal, Hathia Khan Road, Vadodara City near Alankar Studio and flour mill. The property consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor. The ground floor of the suit premises was let out to the first respondent-defendant No.1 Manilal Ishwarbhai Valand-the original tenant in the year 1958 on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/-. The original tenant was running a hair cutting salon in the rented premises under the name of ‘Excellent Hair Dressing Saloon’. The tenancy commenced from the 6th day of the month and ended on 5th day of the following month and for payment of rent, receipt was given from time to time. The original tenant was not in the habit of paying the rent regularly, that is, on the due date of each month and he was in arrears of rent for the period ranging from 06.07.1974 to 05.05.1976, amounting to Rs.660/ for twenty two months. On wilful default in payment of rent, a notice was duly served upon the original tenant to make payment of the above arrears within one month from the date of receipt of notice and the tenant has neither paid the arrears nor sent any reply. Left with no alternative, the appellant-plaintiff was constrained to file Rent Suit No.499 of 1978 on 29.09.1978 before the Court of Small Causes Judge at Vadodara seeking possession of the property and arrears of rent. During the pendency of the suit, the original tenant Manilal Ishwarbhai Valand died on 26.11.1979 and his legal representatives viz., his wife and two sons namely, Dahyalal and Bhogilal were brought on record as defendant Nos.1/1 to 1/3.

3. One of the sons of the tenant named Bhogilal independently runs hair cutting salon on Ajwa Road opposite to Navjivan Society. Similarly, another son Dahyalal was serving in Alembic Glass Works for the last 10 to 12 years. Even when tenant-Manilal was alive, his son Dahyalal never worked with his father and never helped him in running the shop. After the death of the original tenant-defendant No.1 Manilal, the appellant-plaintiff found that one Somabhai Dahiyabhai Valand was inducted into the suit premises by illegal sub-letting of the tenanted premises so as to deprive the appellant-plaintiff of his legal right to seek possession of the suit property. The said Somabhai Dahyabhai Valand was arrayed as defendant No.2 in the suit (respondent No.4 in this appeal).

4. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties and the submissions made by the respective parties, the Small Causes Court allowed the rent suit on the ground of default in payment of rent by the respondents-defendants and also directed them to handover peaceful and vacant possession of the property to the appellant-plaintiff. It was further held by the Small Causes Court that after the death of the original tenant, the defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 are not statutory tenants of the said premises and that the defendant Nos.1/2 and 1/3 have unlawfully sub-let the suit property to respondent No.4 herein with an ulterior motive of depriving the appellant-plaintiff from obtaining peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises.

5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Small Causes Court, the legal representatives of the original tenant preferred Civil Appeal No.227 of 1981 before the District Judge, Vadodara. The 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara on 30.07.1983 al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 346

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAKURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE – AppellantVersusRUKHIBEN AND ORS. – RespondentsCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5284 OF 2006 Decided On : 12-04-2017

IMPORTANT POINTMonthly tenancy is covered by Section 12(3)(a). Landlord will be entitled to eviction and possession in case of default in payment and sub-letting.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
ANIL KUMAR DADURAO DHEKLE – Appellant
Versus
RUKHIBEN AND ORS. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5284 OF 2006
Decided On : 12-04-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
Monthly tenancy is covered by Section 12(3)(a). Landlord will be entitled to eviction and possession in case of default in payment and sub-letting.