IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6391 OF 2002

M. Meeramytheen and Ors.               ...Appellant(s)

Versus

K. Parameswaran Pillai and Ors.       ...Respondent(s)

With Civil Appeal No.7749 of 2002

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

A petition was filed before the learned Munsif,  

Quilon, who was exercising powers of the Rent Controller  

under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and  

Rent Control) Act, 1965, by K. Parameswaran Pillai and B.  

Geethadevi for eviction of the two tenants and one sub-

tenant from two shop rooms which were let out in the year  

1967  on  a  monthly  rental  of  Rs.250/-.   In  1971,  the  

tenants undeniably created a sub-tenancy in relation to  

one of the two rooms in favour of S. Abdul Jabbar.  Later  

on,  a  partition  was  effected  on  12th October,  1981,  in  

which one of the two rooms in question was allotted in the  

share  of  Premachandran  and  the  other  in  favour  of  his  

sister,  B.  Geethadevi,  Plaintiff  No.2.   Premachandran  

transferred  the  room,  allotted  in  his  share,  under  a  

registered sale deed executed in favour of Plaintiff No.1,  

...2/-

- 2 -  

who is nobody else than his own brother.  The present suit  

has been filed by the transferee from Premachandran, who  

acquired right, title and interest in one of the rooms,  

which  was  allotted  in  favour  of  Premachandran  and  

Plaintiff  No.2,  who  is  the  sister  of  Premachandran,  

Plaintiff  No.1,  and  in  whose  share  the  other  room  was  

allotted.  As the cause of action for filing the eviction  

petition had arisen in 1971 prior to the partition, which  

was effected in 1981, the  suit for eviction was filed by  

the transferee from Premachandran in whose favour one room  

was allotted and Plaintiff No.2, who owned another room by  

virtue of the partition.

The defendants filed written statement contesting  

the suit for eviction.  They neither denied title of the  

plaintiffs nor relationship of landlord and tenant.  They,  

however, denied that they had created any sub-tenancy as  

alleged by the plaintiffs.

Before  the  Rent  Controller,  after  framing  of  

issues,  parties  adduced  evidence  in  support  of  their  

respective cases.  The Trial Court, on a consideration of  

evidence brought on record, dismissed the suit recording a  

finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove the case of  

sub-tenancy.   

Against the judgement of the Rent Controller, an  

appeal was preferred.  The appellate court took the view  

that  though  initially  there  was  a  single  tenancy  in  

respect of both the rooms, as a result of the partition  

one each of the two shop rooms were allotted in the shares  

of two different co-sharers.  Hence, the plaintiffs were  

not entitled to seek eviction in relation to both the shop  

rooms and  they could  seek eviction only in  relation  to  

...3/-

- 3 -  

that  shop  room  in  respect  of  which sub-tenancy was  

actually  created.   On  the  basis  of  that  finding,  the  

appellate  court  allowed  the  appeal  in-part  and  granted  

decree for eviction in relation to the room which was the  

subject-matter of sub-tenancy.   

Against the said judgement of the appellate court,  

separate  revision  applications  were  filed  both  by  the  

landlords and the tenants.  The High Court concurred with  

the reasoning of the appellate court for granting a decree  

for eviction only in relation to the room in respect of  

which sub-tenancy was created.  It, however, confirmed the  

finding  recorded  by  the  appellate  court  that  the  

plaintiffs  had  succeeded  in  proving  the  case  of  sub-

tenancy.  Against the said judgement, Civil Appeal No.6391  

of 2002 and Civil Appeal No.7749 of 2002 have been filed  

by the tenants and the landlords respectively by way of  

special leave.

We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf  

of the parties in these appeals.

So far as the finding in relation to creation of  

sub-tenancy  is  concerned,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf of the tenants could not point out any infirmity  

therein.   He  could  not  show  that  the  finding  of  fact  

recorded  by  the  appellate  court  on  the  question  of  

creation  of  sub-tenancy  was  perverse  and,  therefore,  

liable  to  be  interfered  with  by  the  High  Court  in  

revision.   We are, therefore, of the view that no ground  

is made out for any interference with the finding on the  

question of creation of sub-tenancy.

Now,  the  question  arises  as  to  whether  the  

appellate  court  and  the  High  Court  were  justified  in  

granting decree  for eviction  only in  relation to one of

...4/-

- 4 -  

the two rooms, which was actually sub-let.  Undisputedly,  

at the time of letting of in the year 1967, one single  

tenancy was created in relation to both the shop rooms and  

the sub-tenancy was created in respect of one of the two  

rooms in the year 1971.  Thus, the cause of action to file  

suit for eviction accrued in the year 1971.  Ten years  

later, partition was effected by virtue of which these two  

shop rooms were allotted in the shares of two different  

co-sharers,  who  joined  together  in  the  present  suit  

seeking eviction of the tenants and the sub-lessee.  Thus,  

it  cannot  be  said  that  on  account  of  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  accrued  prior  to  the  partition.   This  being  the  

position, we are of the view that the appellate court as  

well  as  the  High  Court  were  not  justified  in  granting  

decree for eviction in relation to only one of the shop  

rooms in respect of which sub-tenancy was created.

Accordingly,  Civil  Appeal  No.7749  of  2002  is  

allowed,  judgement  and  decree  passed  by  the  appellate  

court as well as the High Court are modified and suit for  

eviction is decreed in its entirety.  The  tenants  are,  

however, granted time till 30th June, 2010, to vacate the  

premises in question upon filing the usual undertaking in  

this Court within four weeks from today.

It is directed that in case the tenants fail to  

vacate the premises in question within the aforesaid time,  

it would be open to the decree holder to file an execution  

petition for delivery of possession and in case such a  

petition has been already filed,  an application  shall be

...5/-

- 5 -  

filed therein to the effect that the tenants have not  

vacated the premises in question within the time granted  

by  this Court. In either eventuality, the Executing Court  

is not required to issue any notice to the tenants. The  

Executing Court will see that delivery of possession is  

effected within a period of fifteen days from the date of  

filing  of  the  execution  petition  or  the  application  

aforementioned.  In  case  for  delivery  of  possession  any  

armed force is necessary, the same shall be deputed by the  

Superintendent of Police within forty eight hours from the  

date  requisition  is  received  therefor.   It  is  also  

directed  that  in  case  anybody  else,  other  than  the  

tenants,  is  found  in  possession,  he  shall  also  be  

dispossessed from the premises in question.

Civil Appeal No.6391 of 2002 is dismissed as being  

devoid of any substance.

No costs.

......................J.            [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.            [AFTAB ALAM]

New Delhi, September 17, 2009.