IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5720 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20778 of 2006)

M/s. Topper Builders & Construction P. Ltd.   ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Md. Israil & Ors.                       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The appellant filed suit for eviction of respondent  

no.1 on the ground of subletting.  The trial court vide its  

judgment dated 28th August, 1981 decreed the suit by recording  

a finding that the tenant had sublet the premises without the  

written consent of the landlord, as required under Section 14  

of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 [hereinafter  

referred  to  as  “the  Act”].   On  an  appeal  preferred  by  

respondent no.1, the High Court reversed the judgment and  

decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit.  Hence,  

this appeal by special leave.

....2/-

- 2 -

A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that even  

though the High Court recorded a finding that the tenant has  

not  adduced  any  evidence  to  prove  that  the  property  was  

sublet with the written consent of the landlord, such consent  

could be inferred from the reply to the statutory notice and  

conduct of the parties, i.e, investment of large sums of  

money by the tenant for carrying out repairs and renewals of  

the suit premises.  In the opinion of the High Court, non-

production of the alleged agreement cannot be an open and  

shut case in all situations and in the circumstances of the  

case, permission of the landlord in subletting of the suit  

premises can be inferred.

In our opinion, the reason assigned by the High Court  

for upsetting the judgment of the trial court is legally  

untenable.   Section  14  of  the  Act,  which  provides  for  

restriction on sub-letting, reads as under:-

“14.  Restriction  of  subletting.  (1)  After  the  commencement  of  this  Act,  no  tenant  shall,  without the previous consent in writing of the  landlord –

(a) sublet the whole or any part of the premises  held by him as a tenant; or

(b) transfer or assigns his rights in the tenancy  or in any part thereof.”

The plain language of the above reproduced section  

makes  it  clear  that the tenant cannot sublet whole or any  

part of the premises without previous written consent of the  

landlord.  In the instant case, the trial court as also the  

High  Court  have concurrently found  that the tenant has not

....3/-

- 3 -

produced  any  evidence  of  having  sublet  the  suit  premises  

after obtaining written consent of the landlord.  This being  

the position, reversal by the High Court of the judgment and  

decree  of  eviction  passed  by  the  trial  court  cannot  be  

sustained.   The  appeal  is,  accordingly,  allowed,  impugned  

order rendered by the High Court is set aside and decree for  

eviction  passed  by  the  trial  court  is  restored.

Respondent  No.1  is  granted  time  till  28th February  

2010,  to  vacate  the  premises  in  question  upon  filing  

undertaking to this effect in this Court within four weeks  

from today.   It is directed that in case respondent No.1  

fails 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 already been filed, an application shall  

be filed therein to the effect that respondent No.1 has 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 respondent No.1. 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

....4/-

- 4 -

that in case anybody else, other than the respondent No.1, is  

found in possession, he shall also be dispossessed from the  

premises in question.

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

......................J.               [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, August 21, 2009.