http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: INDRA KUMAR KARNANI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ATUL CHANDRA PATITUNDI AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/03/1965

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) HIDAYATULLAH, M.

CITATION:  1966 AIR  186            1965 SCR  (3) 329  CITATOR INFO :  E          1968 SC 471  (13)

ACT:    West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary  Provisions) Act,  1950  (West  Bengal  Act 17  of  1050)  ss.  12(1)(c), 13--Sub-letting-Permission,  when necessary--Rights of  sub- tenants in violation of agreement--If saved.

HEADNOTE: Respondent No. 2 was a monthly tenant of ’the appellant on a condition  that  he  would not sublet the  premises  of  any portion thereof Under the West Bengal Premises Rent  Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 the appellant filed a  suit against respondent No. 2 for his eviction on the ground that the  tenancy  had been determined on account of  default  in payment  of  rent.   While the suit was  pending,  the  West Bengal  Premises  Rent Control (Temporary  Provisions)  Act, 1950 came into force. The suit was decreed and the appellant took  out  execution proceedings. The suit was  resisted  by respondent  No. 1 who alleged that he had  taken  subtenancy from  respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 also filed  a  suit impleading the appellant and respondent No. 2 and prayed for a  declaration  that on the termination of  the  tenancy  of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 became a direct tenant of the appellant under s. 13(2) of the 1950 Act and he was  not liable  to  be evicted in the execution case. The  suit  was decreed  bY  the  trial court, which  was  affirmed  by  the appellate courts. In appeal by special leave: HELD: The appeal must be dismissed. [334F]     In  the  case of sub-letting by a tenant  of  the  first degree no consent of the landlord to sub-letting is required as  a condition precedent for acquisition by the  sub-lessee of the tenant’s rights, but in the case of sub-letting by  a tenant  inferior  to  the tenant of  the  first  degree  the ,consent  of  the  landlord and also of the  tenant  of  the superior degree above him to the sub-letting is necessary if the  sub-lessee  is  to acquire the  rights  of  the  tenant contemplated by s. 13(2). [332 H]     The clause "and the sub-lease is binding on the landlord of  such last mentioned tenant" in s. 13(2) does not  govern both classes of tenancies, namelY, sub-tenancies created  by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

"tenant  of first degree" and also by "a tenant inferior  to the tenant of the first degree" as defined in s. 13(1). [333 B]     Is  not correct to say that the rights mentioned  in  s, 13(2) are conferred u.on the sub-lessee only in a case where sub-letting  is not in violation of the agreement of  lease. The right of sub-tenant even in a case in which the landlord has brought a suit for eviction against the tenant under  s. 12(1)(c)  are saved and the rights and obligations  of  sub- tenants,  would  be  governed by the  provisions  of.s.  13. [334A]     In  enacting  s.  13  of the  Act  the  legislature  has deliberately  enlarged  the  class  of  sub-tenants  to   be protected from eviction by the landlords and the language of the   section   dealing   with  the  sublessees   has   been deliberately  changed and proper effect  and  interpretation must be given to the language of the new section. [334 E] 330

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  125  of 1963.     Appeal  by  special leave from the judgment  and  decree dated June 2, 1959 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 536 of 1964.     S.  Murthy and B.P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.  M.C. Chakraborthy and R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Ramaswami,  J.  The sole question for  determination  in this  appeal  is  whether  respondent  No.  2--Atul  Chandra Patitundi  is protected from being evicted by  the  landlord from the premises No. 90A, Harish Mukerjee Road situated  in Bhawanipur,  District 24-Parganas in view of the  provisions enacted in s. 13(2) of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary  Provisions) Act, 1950 (West Bengal Act  XVII  of 1950), hereinafter called the 1950 Act.     Some time before 1948, respondent No. 2 was inducted  as a  monthly tenant under Rai Sahib Chartdan Mal Inder  Kumar, the  predecessor-in-interest  of the appellant. One  of  the conditions of the lease was that the tenant will not sub-let the  premises  or any portion thereof. As respondent  No.  2 defaulted  in  the  payment of rent the  appellant  made  an application under s. 14 of the Calcutta Rent Ordinance, 1946 for permission to sue him for eviction. The application  was granted   by  the  Second  Additional  Rent  Controller   on September  10,  1948. On December 1, 1948, the  West  Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 (West Bengal  Act  XXXVIII of 1948). hereinafter called  the  1948 Act,  came into force. On September 15, 1949  the  appellant flied a Title Suit No. 171 of 1949 in the Court of the 1  st Subordinate  Judge, Alipore, 24-Parganas against  respondent No.2  for  his eviction on the ground that the  tenancy  had been  determined on account of default in payment  of  rent. While the suit was pending, the 1950 Act came into force  on March 31,    950. The suit was eventually decreed in  favour of  the appellant on February 25, 1951. The  appellant  took out execution proceedings being Title Execution Case No.  39 of  1951 of the Court of the First Sub-Judge.  Alipore.  The suit  was resisted by respondent No. 1 who alleged  that  he had taken sub-tenancy from respondent No. 2. Respondent  No. 1 also filed Title Suit No. 578 of 1951 in the Court of  4th Munsif  at Alipore impleading the appellant  and  respondent No. 1 and praying for a declaration that on the  termination

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

of the tenancy of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1  became a direct tenant of the appellant under s. 13(2) of the  1950 Act  and  that  he  was not liable  to  be  evicted  in  the execution  case.  The suit was decreed in the Court  of  the Subordinate  Judge  and  the  decree  was  affirmed  by  the District  Judge  of 24-Parganas in Title Appeal No.  157  of 1953.   A Second Appeal was also dismissed by  the  Calcutta High Court on June 2, 1959. 331     On behalf of the appellant the argument put forward  was that the sub-lease granted by respondent No. 1 in favour  of respondent No. 2 was contrary to the agreement of lease  and not binding upon the appellant. It was, therefore, submitted that  the sub-lessee did not acquire the status of a  tenant under s. 13(2) of the 1950 Act and the sub-lessee could  not be deemed to be holding directly under the appellant  within the  meaning  of  that sub-section. The  question  at  issue depends  upon the proper interpretation of s. 13(2)  of  the 1950 Act which states:                     "13. (2) Where any premises or any  part               thereof  have been or has been sub-let  by  ’a               tenant  of the first degree’ or by  ’a  tenant               inferior to a tenant of the first degree’,  as               defined in explanation to sub-section (1), and               the  sublease  is binding on the  landlord  of               such last mentioned tenant, if the tenancy  of               such   tenant  in  either  case  is   lawfully               determined  otherwise  than  by  virtue  of  a               decree  in a suit obtained by the landlord  by               reason  of  any of the  grounds  specified  in               clause (h) of the proviso to subsection (1) of               section 12, the sub-lessee shall be deemed  to               be  a  tenant in respect of such  premises  or               part,  as  the ease may be,  holding  directly               under the landlord of the tenant whose tenancy               has  been determined, on terms and  conditions               on which the sub-lessee would have held  under               the  tenant if the tenancy of the  latter  had               not been so determined:                     Provided that it shall be competent  for               the landlord, or any person deemed under  this               section to be a tenant holding directly  under               the  landlord, to make an application  to  the               Controller for fixing rent of the premises  or               part  thereof in respect of which such  person               is so deemed to be a tenant and until the rent               is fixed by the Controller on such application               such  person  shall be liable to  pay  to  the               landlord  the same rent as was payable by  him               in respect of the premises or part thereof, as               the  ease  may be, to the  tenant  before  the               tenancy   of  the  tenant  therein  had   been               determined. The Controller in fixing the  rent               shall  not  determine such rent  at  the  rate               which  is beyond the limit fixed by  paragraph               (4) of Schedule A. The rent so fixed shall  be               deemed  to  be the standard rent  fixed  under               section 9".                Section   13(1)is  also  relevant   in   this               connection and it  states:                     "13.   (1)   Notwithstanding    anything               contained in this Act, or in any other law for               the time being in force, if a tenant  inferior               to  the tenant of the 1st degree  sub-lets  in               whole  or  in  part the premises  let  to  him

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             except with the consent of the landlord and of               the  tenant  of a superior degree  above  him,               such  sub-lease shall not be binding  on  such               non-consenting  landlord,  or  on  such   non-               consenting tenant.               332               Explanation--In this subsection-                  (a) ’a tenant of the first degree’ means  a               tenant  who  does  not hold  under  any  other               tenant;                  (b) ’a tenant inferior to the tenant of the               first   degree’   means   a   tenant   holding               immediately or mediately under a tenant of the               first degree;                   (c)  ’landlord’  means the landlord  of  a               tenant of the first degree". It is manifest that s. 13(1) makes a distinction between the two  classes  of  sub-tenancies,  namely,  (1)   sub-tenancy created by a tenant of the first degree, and (2) sub-tenancy created  by  "a tenant inferior to the tenant of  the  first degree"  by which is meant a tenant holding  immediately  or mediately under a tenant of the first degree. So far as  the second  class of sub-tenancy is concerned,  the  sub-section enacts  that  the sub-letting will not be binding  upon  the landlord or on the tenant of the superior degree unless each of them has consented to the transaction of sub-lease. There is no express provision in s. 13(1) that a sub-lease of  the 1st class requires previous consent of the landlord or  that in  the absence of such consent the sub-lease shall  not  be binding  upon  the nonconsenting  landlord.   Section  13(2) refers to both the classes of sub-leases and states that  if the sub-lease has been made by a tenant of the first degree, the sub-lessee shall be deemed to be a tenant in respect  of the premises demised to him if the tenancy of such tenant is lawfully   determined  under  the  provisions  of  the   Act otherwise  than by virtue of a decree in a suit obtained  by the  landlord by reason of any of the grounds  specified  in el. (h) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 12.  In the  case  of second class of sub-leases,  i.e.,  sub-leases created  by  a  tenant inferior to the, tenant  of  the  1st degree  also  the sub-lessee will acquire the  status  of  a tenant as mentioned in the statute but in this class of sub- leases  the rights of the tenant are conferred on  the  sub- lessee  only if the sub-lease is binding upon the  landlord. In enacting s. 13(1) and (2) of the 1950 Act the legislature has deliberately made a distinction between the two  classes of sub-tenancies and provided that in the case of  sub-lease of  the first class, namely, sub-leases created by a  tenant of the first degree, the sub-lessee will acquire the  status of the tenant in respect of the premises demised, though the sub-lease is not binding upon the landlord according to  the agreement  of  lease. The legislature has  further  provided that  in the case of sub-lease of the second class the  sub- lessee  will acquire the status of a tenant of the  premises only  if  the sub-lease is binding upon  the  "landlord"  as defined  in  s. 13(1). It follows that in the case  of  sub- letting  by a tenant of the first degree no consent  of  the landlord to sub-letting is required as a condition precedent for acquisition by the sub-lessee of the tenant’s right  but in  the  case  of sub-letting by a tenant  inferior  to  the tenant of the first degree the consent of the landlord and 333 also  of the tenant of the superior degree above him to  the subletting is necessary if the sub-lessee is to acquire  the rights of the tenant contemplated by s. 13(2). It was argued

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

on  behalf  of the appellant that the clause "and  the  sub- lease  is  binding on the landlord of  such  last  mentioned tenant"  in  s.  13(2)governs  both  classes  of  tenancies, namely,  sub-tenancies  created  by  "tenant  of  the  first degree" and also by "a tenant inferior to the tenant of  the first  degree"  as defined in s. 13(1). We do  not  consider that  there is any justification for this  argument.  Having regard  to  the  grammatical structure and  Context  of  the clause  it is obvious that it imposes a  qualification  only upon  sub-tenancies  of  the  second  class.  It  was   also submitted on behalf of the appellant that if a sub-lease  is granted by the tenant of the first degree against the  terms of  the contract of lease the landlord is entitled under  s. 12(1)(c) of the 1950 Act to bring a suit for eviction of the tenant  and  that  in such a suit the tenant  and  the  sub- lessees  are both liable to be evicted from the premises  in question.  It  was  submitted, therefore,  that  the  rights mentioned in s. 13(2) are conferred upon the sub-lessee only in  a  case  where sub-letting is not in  violation  of  the agreement  for lease. In our opinion, there is no  substance in this argument. Section 12(1)(c) states:                      "12.  (1) Notwithstanding  anything  to               the contrary in any other Act or law, no order               or  decree for the recovery of  possession  of               any  premises  shall be made by any  court  in               favour  of  the  landlord  against  a  tenant,               including a tenant whose lease has expired:                       Provided  that  nothing  in  the  sub-               section shall apply               to  any suit for decree for such  recovery  of               possession,--                   (c)  against a tenant who has sub-let  the               whole  or a major portion of the premises  for               more than seven consecutive months:        Provided  that  if  a tenant who  has  sub-let  major portion  of  the premises agree to possess as a  tenant  the portion of the premises not sub-let on payment of rent fixed by the  Court, the Court shall pass a decree  for  ejectment from  only  a  portion  of  the  premises  sub-let  and  fix proportionately fair rent for the portion kept in possession of  such tenant, which portion shall thenceforth  constitute premises under clause (8) of section 2 and the rent so fixed shall be deemed standard rent fixed under section 9, and the rights  and’ obligations of the sub-tenants of  the  portion from  which  the tenant is ejected shall be the same  as  of sub-tenants under the provision of section 13;". It  is  manifest that s. 12(1)(c) saves the  right  of  sub- tenants  even in a case in which the landlord has brought  a suit for eviction against 334 the tenant under s. 12(1)(c) and the rights and  obligations of subtenants would be governed by the provisions of s.  13. Counsel  on  behalf of the appellant also  referred  to  the provisions of s. 11(3) of the 1948 Act which states:                     "11.(3) Any person to whom any  premises               or  any  part thereof have been  or  has  been               lawfully  sublet by a tenant shall, where  the               interest  of  the tenant in such  premises  or               part is lawfully determined otherwise than  by               virtue  of a decree or order obtained’ by  the               landlord  on any of the grounds  specified  in               clause (f) of the proviso to sub-section  (1),               be  deemed to be a tenant in respect  of  such               premises or part, as the case may be,  holding               directly  under the landlord on the terms  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

             conditions  on  which such person  would  have               held  under the tenant if the interest of  the               tenant had not been so determined: It was pointed out that rights are conferred by the  statute only  upon  sub-lessees  to  whom  the  premises  have  been "lawfully" sublet by a tenant. It was contended that  though the  1948 Act was repealed and substituted by the 1950  Act, the  provisions  of s. 13(2) of the latter Act  have  to  be construed in the context of the language of s. 11(31) of the 1948 Act. We are unable to accept this argument as  correct. It  is  manifest  that in enacting s. 13  of  1950  Act  the legislature  has  deliberately enlarged the  class  of  sub- tenants  to be protected from eviction by the landlords  and the language of the section dealing with the sub-lessees has been   deliberately   changed   and   proper   effect    and interpretation  must  be given to the language  of  the  new section.     For  the  reasons expressed, we hold that  the  suit  of respondent  No. 1 has been rightly decreed and  this  appeal must be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. 335