Lubna and Ors. Vs. Beevi and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2442 – 2443 of 201- January 13, 2020
The Supreme Court Bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K. M. Joseph allowed the appeals by the appellants stating that sub-letting of a building’s premise without the nitoce of the owner is unfair.
Issue: Whether a person after the transfer of the right of possession of his property sub-let a portion of the property?
According to the background facts of the case, one Pathumakutty let out three shop premises defined Room No.s 3/471, 3/472, 3/476 for a monthly rent of Rs. 75. The ownership of the premises was transferred to the appellants in 1986 by a registered document. The rent paid by the respondents was not paid after November 1987. It is also alleged that the appellants required the premises bona fide; two of the shops had been sublet by the original respondent without the consent of the respondents and the rent of the shops has been reduced materially and permanently by the respondents. The appellants sent a legal notice for surrender of possession of the shops and arrears of rent and filed an eviction notice. The trial court vide judgment found that the respondents were to be evicted.
According to section 11(2)(b) and 11(2)(c) says that one month’s time is deemed to be given for the tenant to pay the arrears of rent and the cost of the proceedings and in due course vacate the building.
After the eviction notice, it is found that the respondents have paid the arrears of rent. The appellants preferred an appeal. It is found and proved that the portions of shop 3/472- the requirement of the appellant was proved and in 3/476 was proved to be sublet and therefore the eviction was granted. Both the parties made cross-revision petitions, eviction of 3/471, 3/472 failed and the eviction of 3/476 sustained. The appellants made a Special Leave Petition and leave was granted. No petition was filed by the respondents. On perusal of the records, one eviction notice is being sent for the eviction of three different grounds, although the allegation is made in different grounds for different characters. The portion 3/476 is proved to be sublet and that is proved and accepted by the trial court and the High Court. The Court held that it could not be said that on account of the partition, the original tenancy was divided and therefore, eviction could be ordered only in respect of one of the rooms that was actually sub-let, more so when the cause of action had arisen prior to the partition. The order passed for eviction of single shop was stated to be legal error and thus eviction was granted for both the shops.
It was held that it could not be said that on account of the partition, the original tenancy was divided and therefore, eviction could be ordered only in respect of one of the rooms that was actually sub-let, more so when the cause of action had arisen prior to the partition. The appellate court and the High Court, having granted a decree of eviction only with respect to one shop, was stated to be a legal error committed and, thus, eviction was granted in respect of both the shops on the ground that one of the shops was sub-leased
The court stated that under sub-para (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the said Act leaves no manner of doubt that the cause arises upon the tenant transferring his rights under a lease and sub-lets the entire building “or any portion thereof”, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. The proviso requires that the landlord should have sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and upon the tenant failing to terminate the transfer or the sub-lease, as the case may be, within thirty (30) days of the receipt 10 of the notice, an application for eviction could be made by the landlord. Thus, sub-letting of any part of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction from the whole premises
The appeal was allowed by the Court and 6 months’ time is given to vacate the premises.
View/ Download the Judgment: K. Lubna and Ors. Vs. Beevi and Ors.,
– Vydurya Selvi Baskaran
コメント