http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: K K. KRISHNAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.K. VIJAYA RAGHAVAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT30/07/1980

BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) BENCH: REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1980 AIR 1756            1981 SCR  (1) 139  1980 SCC  (4)  88

ACT:      Rent Control  legislation-Kerala Buildings  (Lease  and Rent Control)  Act, 1965-Section 11(4)(i)-Scope of-Tenant-If could sublet  the premises  with out  landlord’s permission- Section 108  Transfer of  Property Act if could be a defence to an action for eviction.

HEADNOTE:      On the  ground that  the tenant had sublet the premises without  his   consent  the  landlord  sought  the  tenant’s eviction from  the premises  under section  11(4)(i) of  the Kerala Buildings  (Lease and  Rent Control)  Act, 1965.  The Rent Controller ordered eviction and this order was affirmed by the Subordinate Judge, District Judge and the High Court.      Before this  Court it  was contended  on behalf  of the tenant that under section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,  it was  a term  of every  lease that  the lessee might sublease  the whole or any part of his interest in the property  and,   therefore,  unless   the  lease   expressly prohibited the  lessee from sub-letting the whole or part of the premises,  the  landlord  could  not  have  recourse  to section 11(4)(i) of the Act.      Dismissing the appeal, ^      HELD: What section 11(4)(i) of the Act provides is that sub-letting shall be a ground for eviction but not if it was by agreement of the landlord. [142G]      1(a) What  section 11(4)(i)  means is that a tenant may be evicted  on the  ground of  sub-letting unless  such sub- letting is  permitted by  a term  of the  lease itself or by subsequent consent  of the  landlord. If  the clause "if the lease does  not confer  on him  any right  to do so" was not there the  position would  be unarguable that section 108(j) of the  Transfer of  Property Act would offer no protection. But the addition of the clause only clarified that the right to sublet  could be  conferred on  the tenant  either at the time  of  the  lease  or  subsequently  but  it  had  to  be conferred; it  could not  be  claimed  unilaterally  by  the tenant. [142B-D]      (b) Quite  obviously the  legislature thought  that the tenant, whose  tenancy was well secured and protected by the rights conferred by the Act should alone be entitled to such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

security and  protection and  that the  tenant should not be allowed  to  profit  by  the  protection  given  to  him  by subletting the  premises and  extending  the  protection  to others beside  himself unless the landlord by his act agreed to such a course. [142F]      2. It  is well  settled law  that not  all  the  rights conferred on  the landlord  and tenant  by section  108  and other provisions  of the  Transfer of Property Act have been left intact  by the  various State  Rent Acts  and that if a State Rent 140 Act  makes  provision  for  eviction  on  certain  specified grounds, eviction  cannot be resisted on the basis of rights conferred by  the Transfer  of Property  Act. Section 108(j) stands displaced  by section  11(4)(i) of  the Act and is no defence to  an action  for eviction  based on  this section. [143G]      V. Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal. AIR 1979 SC 1745 @ 1747= [1980] 1 SCR 334 referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 140 of 1979.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated 8-12-1978  of the  Kerala High  Court  in  C.R.P.  No. 3450/78.      P.  Govindan   Nair,  Sardar  Bahadur  Saharya,  Vishnu Bahadur Saharya and Mrs. Baby Krishnan for the Appellant      T. S.  Krishnamurthy  Iyer,  A.  S.  Nambiyar,  and  P. Parmeswaran for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J.-The  respondent-landlord  filed  a petition for  eviction  of  the  appellant-tenant  from  the premises  in   dispute  under  s.  11(4)(i)  of  the  Kerala Buildings (Lease  and Rent  Control) Act, No. II of 1965, on the ground  that the  appellant  had  sub-let  the  premises without the  consent of  the landlord.  The petition  had  a chequered career  but finally  the Rent  Controller  ordered eviction by  his order dated July 31, 1974. The order of the Rent  Controller   was  confirmed,   successively   by   the Subordinate Judge,  the District  Judge and, the High Court. The tenant has now preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court under Art, 136 of the Constitution.      Shri Govindan  Nair learned  counsel for  the appellant submitted that  under s.  108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,  it was  a term  of every  lease that  the lessee might sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property  and,   therefore,  unless   the  lease   expressly prohibited the  lessee from sub-letting the whole or part of the premises,  the landlord  could not  have recourse  to s. 11(4)(i) of  the Kerala  Buildings (Lease  and Rent Control) Act.      In order  to appreciate the submission of Shri Govindan Nair, we  may set  out the relevant statutory provisions. S. 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is as follows:           "108. In  the absence of a contract or local usage      to the  contrary, the  lessor and  the  lessee  of  the      immovable   property,    as   against    one   another,      respectively, possess the rights and are 141      subject to  the liabilities mentioned in the rules next following, or such of them as are applicable to the property leased :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

         (A) Rights and liabilities of the lessor                (a) X X X        X X X        X X X                (b) X X X        X X X        X X X                (c) X X X        X X X        X X X           (B) Rights and liabilities of the lessee                (d) X X X        X X X        X X X                (e) X X X        X X X        X X X                (f) X X X        X X X        X X X                (g) X X X        X X X        X X X                (h) X X X        X X X        X X X                (i) X X X        X X X        X X X                (j)  the lessee may transfer absolutely or by                     way of  mortgage or  sub-lease the whole                     or any  part  of  his  interest  in  the                     property, and  any  transferee  of  such                     interest or  part may again transfer it.                     The lessee  shall not, by reason only of                     such transfer,  cease to  be subject  to                     any of  the liabilities attaching to the                     lease;                     X X X        X X X        X X X      S. 11  of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, No. II of 1965, to the extent that it is relevant is as follows:           "11(1) Notwithstanding  anything to  the  contrary      contained in  any other  law or contract a tenant shall      not be  evicted whether  in execution  of a  decree  or      otherwise, except  in accordance with the provisions of      this Act:      Provided that     ...     ...     ...     ...     ...      Provided further that     ...     ...     ...     ...           (2) X X X        X X X        X X X           (3) X X X        X X X        X X X           (4) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court      for an  order directing  the tenant to put the landlord      in possession of the building:-                (i) if  the tenant  after the commencement of           this Act,  without the  consent of  the  landlord,           transfers his  right under  the lease  or sub-lets           the entire  building or any portion thereof if the           lease does not confer on him any right to do so".      The submission  of Shri  Govindan Nair  was that if the lease did  not expressly prohibit sub-letting, the provision in s. 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act which enabled a lessee to sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property had necessarily to 142 be read  into every  lease as one of its terms, and so read, it followed that the lease conferred on the tenant the right to sub-let  "the entire  building or any portion thereof" so as to  disentitle the  landlord from seeking eviction of the tenant under s. 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Act. We are unable to agree with this submission.      Read plainly and without gloss, s. 11(4)(i), simply and clearly, means that a tenant may be evicted on the ground of sub-letting unless  such sub-letting  is permitted by a term of  the  lease  itself  or  by  subsequent  consent  of  the landlord. What  is necessary  is an  application of the mind and the  resulting consensus  between the  landlord and  the tenant. If  the clause  "if the lease does not confer on him any right  to do  so" was  not  there  in  s.  11(4)(i)  the position would  be unarguable  that s. 108(j) would offer no protection. That  much was  also conceded  by Shri  Govindan Nair. In  our opinion,  the addition  of the  clause did not improve matters for the tenant. It only clarified matters to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

this extent  that the  right to sublet could be conferred on the tenant  either at the time of the lease or subsequently, but it  had  to  be  conferred:  it  could  not  be  claimed unilaterally by  the tenant. To interpret s. 11(4)(i) in the manner suggested  by Shri  Govindan Nair would be to rewrite the      provision       as      follows:       "if      the tenant..........................., without  the  consent  of the landlord, transfers his right under the lease or sublets the  entire   building  or   any  portion   thereof,  though prohibited by  lease from doing so". That, we are not called upon to  do. A  little thought  over the  reason for  s.  11 (4)(i) will  also throw  some light.  Quite  obviously,  the legislature thought  that the  tenant whose tenancy was well secured  and  protected  by  the  rights  conferred  by  the Buildings (Lease  and Rent  Control)  Act  should  alone  be entitled to such security and protection and that the tenant should not  be allowed  to profit by the protection given to him by  subletting the premises and extending the protection to others  besides himself,  unless the  landlord by his act agreed to  such a  course. Where  the landlord  had  himself agreed that  the tenant could sublet, the question would not arise. Therefore,  s. 11  (4)(i)  provides  that  subletting shall be  a ground  for  eviction  but  not  if  it  was  by agreement of the landlord.      In V.  Dhanapal Chettiar v. Yesodai Ammal(1) a Bench of seven judges  of this  Court had  to consider  the  question whether notice  under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining the  lease was necessary before a landlord could move Rent  Controller or other appropriate authority for the eviction of  the tenant  under the  various State Rent Acts. The Court  held that  it was not necessary and Untwalia, J., speaking for the Court, said: 143           "Section 108 deals with the rights and liabilities      of lessors  and lessees.  Many  State  Rent  Acts  have      brought about  considerable changes  in the  rights and      liabilities of a lessor and a lessee, largely in favour      of the  latter,  although  not  wholly.  The  topic  of      Transfer of  Property other  than agricultural  land is      covered by  Entry 6 of List III in the Seventh Schedule      to  the   Constitution.  The   subject  being   in  the      concurrent list, many State Rent Acts have by necessary      implication  and  many  of  them  by  starting  certain      provisions with  a non-obstante  clause have  done away      with the  law engrafted  in s.  108 of  the Transfer of      Property Act  except in  regard to  any matter which is      not provided  for in  the State Act either expressly or      by necessary implication". Later, he said:           "But when  under  the  various  State  Rent  Acts,      either in  one language  or  the  other,  it  has  been      provided that  a tenant  can be  evicted on the grounds      mentioned in  certain sections  of the  said Acts, then      how does  the question of determination of a tenancy by      notice arise? If the State Rent Act requires the giving      of a  particular type  of notice  in  order  to  get  a      particular kind  of relief,  such a notice will have to      be given.  Or, it  may be  that a landlord will be well      advised by  way of  abundant precaution and in order to      lend additional  support to  his case, to give a notice      to his  tenant intimating  that he  intended to  file a      suit  against  him  for  his  eviction  on  the  ground      mentioned in  the notice.  But that  is not to say that      such a  notice is  compulsory or  obligatory or that it      must fulfill  all the technical requirements of section

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

    106 of the Transfer of Property Act".      It is  clear from  what has  been said that not all the rights conferred  on landlord and tenant by s. 108 and other provisions of the Transfer of Property Act have been left in tact by the various State Rent Acts and that if a State Rent Act  makes  provision  for  eviction  on  certain  specified grounds, eviction  cannot be resisted on the basis of rights conferred by the Transfer of Property Act. Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act stands displaced by s. 11(4)(i) of the  Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act and is no defence to an action for eviction based on s. 11(4)(i).      We are  satisfied that  the appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs. P.B.R.                                     Appeal dismissed. 144