http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: GAJANAN DATTATRAYA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHERBANU HOSANG PATEL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/08/1975

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

CITATION:  1975 AIR 2156            1976 SCR  (1) 535  1975 SCC  (2) 668  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1987 SC2220  (16)  RF         1990 SC 879  (4,6)  R          1991 SC1040  (3)

ACT:      Bombay Rents,  Hotel &  Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947-Section 13(1)(e)  -Subletting  a  ground  for  eviction whether must  continue on the date of institution of suit or whether  sufficient   if  exists   on  the  date  of  notice terminating tenancy.

HEADNOTE:      The respondent-landlord  filled  a  suit  for  eviction against  the   appellant-tenant  on   the  ground  that  the appellant had  sublet a  portion of  the premises. The trial court and  the First  Appellate Court came to the conclusion that on the date when the notice terminating the tenancy was served on  the appellant,  he did, in fact, sublet a portion of the  suit premises.  The courts,  however,  came  to  the conclusion that  on the  date when the respondent instituted the eviction  suit the  sub letting  had ceased.  The  trial court and  the lower  appellate court  granted a  decree  of eviction in  favour of  the respondent.  A revision filed by the appellant  before the  High Court  also failed.  Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents Act makes a ground of eviction, "that the  tenant has,  since the  coming into operation of’ this Act, unlawfully sublet.. "      On appeal  by special  leave, it  was contended  by the appellant that the expression "has sublet" pre-supposes that subletting must continue till the date of the institution of the suit.  Dismissing the appeal. ^      HELD: (1)  The tenant  is disentitled to any protection under the  Bombay Rent  Act if  he is within the mischief of the provisions  of s.  13(1)(e). To accede to the contention of the  appellant would  mean that  a tenant  would  not  be within the  mischief of  unlawful subletting  if  after  the landlord gives  a notice  terminating  the  tenancy  on  the ground of  unlawful subletting  the sub-tenant  vacates. The landlord will  not be  able to  get any  relief against  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

tenant in  spite of  unlawful subletting.  In that  way  the tenant can foil the attempt of landlord to obtain possession of the  Premises on  the ground  of subletting every time by getting the sub-tenant to vacate the premises. [538-D]      (2) The  tenant’s liability to eviction arises when the fact of  unlawful subletting  is proved.  At the date of the notice if  it is  proved that there was unlawful subletting, the tenant is liable to be evicted. [538-D]      Maganlal Narandas  Thakkar &  Anr. v. Arjun BhanjiKanbi [969]G.L.R. Vol.  10 p.  627  Goppulal  v.  Thakurji  Shriji Shriji  Dwarkadheeshji   &  Anr.   [1969]  3   S.C.R.   989, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:Civil Appeal  No. 591  of 1974.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  order dated the  15th February,  1974 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Appln. No. 326/71.      P. H. Parekh and Manju Jaitley, for the appellant.      S. S. Khanduja and R. N. Bhalgoha, for respondents 2-4.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RAY, C.J.-This  appeal is  by special  leave  from  the judgment dated  15 February,  1974 of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant. 536      The appellant  filed a  Revision Petition  in the  High Court against    the  judgment  and  decree  passed  by  the District Judge  dismissing his appeal against the decree for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises.      The respondent filed the suit against the appellant for possession of  the premises on the ground that the appellant had sublet a portion of the premises.      Section 13(1)  (e) of  the Bombay  Rents, &  Hotel  and Lodging House  r  Rates  Control  Act,  1947  which  is  the relevant section  for the  purpose of  this appeal  runs  as follows :           "13(1)(e) That  the tenant  has, since  the coming      into operation o this Act, unlawfully sublet, or after      the date  of Cr commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel      and Lodging  House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1973,      unlawfully given  on licence,  the whole or part of the      premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner      his interest therein".      The appellant  took on  lease on  1 January,  1960  the premises, namely,  first floor consisting of four rooms at a rent of Rs. 50/- per month.      The respondent  alleged that  the  appellant  sublet  a portion thereof,  namely, two rooms, in the month of August, 1965. The  respondent on  1 April, 1967 gave a notice to the appellant terminating the tenancy.      The  appellant  denied  that  there  was  any  unlawful subletting  of  two  rooms  to  respondent  No.  5  Jitendra Shankerji Desai.  The appellant  further  alleged  that  the respondent No.  5 Desai  vacated the  suit  premises  on  14 April, 1967.      At the  trial the  issues were  whether  the  appellant unlawfully sublet  two rooms  to respondent Desai. The Trial Court held  that the  appellant sublet  the suit premises to respondent No.  S.  The  Trial  Court  gave  the  plaintiff- respondent a decree for possession of the suit premises.      The appellant  preferred  an  appeal.  The  appeal  was dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    The appellant, thereafter, filed a revision petition in the High  Court. In  the High  Court  the  contentions  were these. The  expression "the  tenant has  sublet" in  section 13(1)(e)  of   the  above   mentioned  Act  means  that  the subletting must continue at the date of the suit for passing the decree.  The notice  was given  on 1  April, 1967.   The respondent No.  5 vacated  the premises in suit on 14 April, 1967. When  the suit  was filed  the sub-tenant  was not  in occupation  of   the  premises.   Therefore,  the  plaintiff respondent was not entitled to a decree.      The High  Court relied on a Bench Decision of that High Court   Maganlal Narandas  Thakkar &  Anr. v.  Arjan  Bhanii Kanbi(1)      (1) 1969 G.L.R. Vol. 10 p. 837. 537      where it  was held  that  the  words  "has  sublet"  in section 13(1)  (e) of  the Saurashtra  Rent Control Act mean that a  subletting has  take place  and as  a result of that subletting the  impediment in  the way  of the  landlord  to recover  possession   has  been   removed.  The   provisions contained in section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act are  r similar to the provisions contained in the Bombay Act; 1947.  The High  Court also  held that  the wards  ’has sublet’ do  not include any element of the sub-tenancy being in existence at the date when the suit is filed.      The appellant  relied on  a decision  on this  Court in Goppal  v.  Thakurji  Shriji  Shriji  Dwarkadheeshji  &  Anr support of the proposition that the words "has sublet" means that the  subletting is  to subsist at the date of the suit. This Court  in Goppulal’s  case (supra)  considered  section 13(1) of  the   Rajasthan  Premises  (Control  of  Rent  and Eviction) Act,  1950. Section 13(1) (e) of the Rajasthan Act provides that  no decree evicting the tenant shall be passed unless the  Court is  satisfied "(e)  that  the  tenant  has assigned, sublet  or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises, without the permission of the landlord".      The High  Court in  Goppulal’s case  (supra) held  that two. shops  were sublet  after October  15,  1947  when  the Jaipur Rent  Control order, 1947 came into force. Subletting was a ground for ejectment under paragraph 8 (1) (b) (ii) of the Jaipur  Rent Control  order, 1947.  The High  Court held that the  tenant’s liability  for eviction  on  this  ground continued after  the promulgation  of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.      This Court  said that  the High Court was in error that there was  one "integrated tenancy" for six shops. The facts found were  that four  shops were  let out  in 1944  and two shops were  let out  after 1945.  This Court  found that the High Court  was in  error in  holding that  two   shops were sublet after 15 October, 1947.      This Court  held that the plaintiffs in Goppulal’s case (supra) did  not establish  that the subletting was after 15 October, 1947  and on the Date of the subletting in 1944, no Rent Control Legislation was in force. lt is in that context that it  is said  that the  words "has sublet" contemplate a completed event  connected in  some  way  with  the  present time". This  Court said  that the  words "has  sublet"  take within their sweep any subletting which was made in the past and has  continued upto  the present time". What is meant by these observations is that the vice of subletting which fell within the  mischief of  the Act  continues to be a mischief within the  Act. In  Goppulal’s case  (supra) there  was  no subletting in  1947 to  violate the 1947 Jaipur Rent Control order and  therefore there could not be any subletting which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

could continue upto the 1950 Rajasthan Act.      On the  date of  the subletting  in   1944, this  Court found in  Goppulal’s case  (supra) that  there was  no  Rent Control Legislation in      (1) [1969] 3 S.C.R. 989. 4-L925SupCI/75 538 force This Court did not consider the question as to whether subletting to be within the mischief of the relevant statute was to subsist at the date of the suit. This Court held that section 13(1)(e)  of the  Rajasthan Act  would  include  any subletting which  though made  in the past would continue at the point of the time when the Act came into force.      The appellant  repeated the  same contentions which had been advanced  before the  High Court. The provisions of the Bombay Rents,  Hotel and  Lodging House  Rates Control  Act, 1947 indicate that a tenant is disentitled to any protection under the Act if he is within the mischief of the provisions of section  13(1)(e), namely,  t that  he  has  sublet.  The language is  that if  the tenant  has sublet, the protection ceases. To  accede to  the contention of the appellant would mean that  a tenant  would not  be within  the  mischief  of unlawful subletting  if after  the landlord  gives a  notice terminating the tenancy on the ground of unlawful subletting the sub-tenant vacates. The landlord will not be able to get any  relief   against  the   tenant  in  spite  of  unlawful subletting. In  that way  the tenant can foil the attempt of landlord to  obtain possession of the premises on the ground of subletting every time by getting the sub-tenant to vacate the premises. The tenant’s liability to eviction arises once the fact  of unlawful  subletting is  proved. At the date of the  notice,  if  it  is  proved  that  there  was  unlawful subletting, the  tenant is  liable to  be evicted.  The High Court rightly rejected the revision petition.      The appeal is dismissed with costs. ] P.H.P.                                     Appeal dismissed. 539