http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: RAM SARAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PYARE LAL AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/01/1996

BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) NANAVATI G.T. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (1)   441        1996 SCALE  (1)458

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T G.N. RAY. J.      Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.      This appeal  is directed  against  the  judgment  dated 23.6.1992 passed  by a  Single Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court  in C.R.  No.134 of  1992 arising out of judgment dated 16.5.1990  passed by  the  Appellate  Authority  (II), Solan in  Rent Appeal No. 5 NL/14 of 1990/1988 reversing the order  of  eviction  dated  30.9.1988  passed  by  the  Rent Controller, Nalagarh in Case No. 6/2 of 1986.      The relevant facts concerning this appeal may be stated as hereunder.  The shop room appertaining to khewat-khatanni No. Min.  354/498, Khasra  No. 734,  in Main Bazar, Nalagarh town is  owned by  the appellant landlord. The appellant let out the said shop room to respondent No.1 on 15.7.1973 for a monthly rental  at Rs.140/-  excluding  water  and  electric charges. The  said respondent  No.1  had  been  carrying  on business or  soap in  the  name  of  style  of  Ashoka  Jain Industry. The landlord filed an application under Section 14 of the  Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) for eviction of respondent No.1 and  his  sub-tenant  respondent  No.2  Mahavir  Gram  Udyog Samiti,   a   society   registered   under   the   Societies Registration Act  in 1977  on the grounds of arrears of rent and for  sub letting  the said  premises to respondent No. 2 without consent  of the landlord. It was also contended that the landlord  required the  suit premises  for carrying  out business with the held of land-lord’s son.      The respondent  tenant denied  the material allegations of the  landlord. According  to respondent  tenant, the shop room had  not been  sublet. But  the name of the firm Ashoka Jain industry had been changed to Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti. Such Samiti  is a  registered society,  registered on  10.2. 1977 comprising the tenant and his family members. There had not been  any change  in the  business which  the tenant had been carrying  in the name of Ashoka Jain Industry. The land

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

lord being  fully aware  of the said fact had been accepting rent from  the said  Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti. Accordingly, the land  lord was  stopped from  seeking  eviction  on  the ground of  subletting. The  other grounds  for eviction were also denied by the tenant respondent.      The learned  Rent Controller. Nalagarh in Rent Case No. 6/2 of  1986 inter  alia came to the finding that the tenant respondent No.1  had parted  with the possession of the said shop room  in favour  of the  said registered society namely Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti and the said samiti was a distinct legal entity  which could  sue and  be sued in its own name. The learned  Sent Controller  had  also  indicated  that  or scrutiny of  the  memorandum  of  association  of  the  said society (Ext.  1/A), it  was revealed  that the samiti could include new members and any existing member could be removed from the  membership of the society by 2/3rd or the majority of general members. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 who was then a  member of  the said registered society could also be removed from  the said  society. The learned Rent Controller further  held   that  the  tenant  respondent  No.1  had  no exclusive control  and possession of the suit premises which was being occupied by the said registered society.      The tenant  respondent No.1  was also not in a position to recover  possession of  the said  shop room from the said registered society.  The said  registered  society  being  a besting legal  entity did  not  represent  the  Ashoka  Jain industries belonging  exclusively to the Respondent No.1 and his son  stated to  be a  partner of the said firm. The Rent Controller had  also found  that the  tenant respondent No.1 had also  not been paying rent on his behalf or on behalf of Ashoka Jain  Industries but  on his  own admission,  he  was paying rent  from the  funds of  registered society  in  his capacity as  President of the said registered society. As no lawful sub-tenancy  could be created under Section 14 of the Rent Act without written consent of the landlord,the payment of  rent  by  respondent  No.1  as  President  of  the  said registered society  had not  created any  legal substancy in favour of  the said  registered society.  The  learned  Rent Controller,  therefore   on  a   finding  that   the  tenant respondent No.1  having sublet  the said shop room in favour of a  distinct legal  entity which  had been carrying on its business activities  in the  said premises, was liable to be evicted,  passed   the  order   of  eviction   against   the defendants. The  other grounds  for eviction  were, however, answered in the negative by the learned Rent Controller.      The tenant  respondent No.1  preferred an appeal before the Appellate  Appellate  Authority  at  Solan  against  the decision of  the  Rent  Controller.  The  learned  Appellate Authority however  reversed the decision of the learned Rent Controller and  dismissed the  eviction suit  on the finding that the respondent No.1 tenant, in order to serve villagers by promoting  village industries,  khadi,  basic  education, agriculture, breeding  of cows  and pulls village sanitation etc. had  constituted the  said society  namely  Gram  Udyog Samiti in  which he  was member of the governing body of the society and  also its  President along with other members of his family  as the  members of the said society. The case of the said  tenant was that he was carrying on the business of soap in  the suit  premises. In  the said facts, even if the said Samiti  was carrying  on its  various activities in the said  premises,  the  original  tenant  being  in  effective control of  the affairs  of the said samiti, it could not be held that  he had let out the premises in favour of the said society. Hence,  decree for  eviction on  the ground of sub- letting was not justified.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

    The landlord  appellant thereafter  moved the  Himachal Pradesh High  Court under Section 21(5) of the Rent Act. The High Court by impugned judgment has dismissed the revisional application.  The   Single  Bench  of  the  High  Court  has indicated that the Appellate Authority held that in order to serve villagers of Nalagarh area, the tenant had constituted a registered  society with himself and his family members as the members  or the  said registered  society and the tenant had retained  control  over  the  functioning  of  the  said society in  which he  was President. In the aforesaid facts, although the  said society had been carrying on its business activities in  the said  premises it  could not be held that the tenant had lost control and possession over the premises in question.  Hence, the  case of  sub-letting by the tenant respondent No.1  it favour  of the  said registered  society cannot be  accented. Being  aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the landlord appellant moved this Court by filing a special leave petition.      The learned  counsel for  the  appellant  landlord  has contended that  it is an admitted position that the disputed shop room  was lat out to respondent No.1 tenant in 1972. In the said  shop room  he was  running business of soap in the name and  style of  Ashoka  Jain  Industries.  According  to respondent no.1  himself the  said business  in the  name of Ashoka Jain  Industries is being run by him with the held of one of his son as a partner. It is also an admitted position that in  1977 a  society, in  the name of Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti was  formed and  the said samiti was registered under the Societies  Registration Act,  1977. The  said registered society,  according  to  respondent  No.1.  was  formed  for various beneficial  activities of  the rural  people in  the locality namely  for  promoting  khadi  activities,  village industries, basic  education, agriculture,  breeding of cows and bulls.  The said  registered samiti  is comprised  of  a number of  members and  the respondent No.1 is also a member of the  registered society.  It is also an admitted position that the  said registered  society has  been carrying on its various  activities   from  the   shop  room.  It  has  also transpired from  the deposition  of respondent  No.1 that he happens to  be the  President of the said registered society and that  he is paying rent of the shop room in his capacity as President  of the  Samiti and such payment of rent of the shop room  is being  made from  the fund of the samiti. As a matter of  fact, the  respondent No.1  has sought to raise a plea of  stopped against  the landlord by contending that as the landlord  accepted payment  of rent  by the  said samiti through its  President, the landlord is stopped from seeking eviction on  the score  of unauthorised  sub-letting of  the shop room.      The learned  counsel for  the appellant  has  submitted that the  Memorandum of  Association of  the said registered society has  been exhibited  in the eviction proceedings and the  learned   Rent  Controller  on  scrutiny  of  the  said Memorandum has  come to  a specific finding that in terms of the Memorandum,  any member of the society may be removed by 2/3rd majority  of the  members of the society. Such society can also  admit other  members in the society. Noticing such facts, the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that the registered society is not only a distinct legal entity which can sue and be sued but the said distinct legal entity is in possession of  the shop  room and carrying on its activities therefrom. The  learned counsel  has submitted  that  it  is immaterial whether  the tenant respondent No.1 happens to be its President  at the  moment and  the members  of the  said society are members of his family. The President and members

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

of the  registered society  are not  owners of the said firm Ashoka Jain  Industries. The  assets of  the said registered society, under the law do not also being to its President or the members  of the  society. It  is quite possible that the President and  the other  members may  be  removed  and  new members may  be admitted  in the said registered society. In such facts, the appellant Authority and the High Court erred in proceeding  on  the  footing  that  the  respondent  No.1 himself being  President of  the said registered society was controlling the  affairs of the society and hence he had not parted with possession of the shop room.      The learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  further contended that  the Respondent No.1 has sought to make out a case as  pleaded in  the written  statement that the name of Ashoka Jain  Industries has  been changed  to  Mahavir  Gram Udyog Samiti  and the  said Samiti  with more members of the family are  carrying on  the old  business  of  Ashoka  Jain Industries. Such  case  of  the  Respondent  No.1  has  been established to on false because Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti is a different legal entity and on the face of the admission of the tenant  respondent No.1.  the said registered society is connected with diverse activities for the alleged welfare of rural population  and the  same is not carrying the personal business of the respondent No.1.      The learned  counsel has  submitted that  the very fact that a  distinct legal  entity has  been possessing the shop room and  carrying on  its activities  in the said shop room makes it  abundantly clear  that  the  respondent  No.1  has parted with  possession of  the said  shop room in favour of the said  registered society.  It has  been submitted by the learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  that  not  only  such possession of the shop room has been handed over to the said registered society  but the  respondent  No.1.  on  his  own admission, is not paying rent for the shop room but the sub- lessee is  paying rent  through its President. Hence, a case of sub-lease  which is admittedly without written consent of the landlord, has been clearly established.      In  this   connection,  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant has referred to the decision of this Court in Roop Chand versus  Gopi Chand  Thela (1989  (2) SCC  383). In the said case,  a club  registered under  the Companies  Act had been in  possession of  the substantial  portion of the shop room and had been carrying on its activities. The tenant was also in  possession of  a part  of the  said  premises.  The Courts below  held that  the tenant  was  not  in  exclusive possession  of   the  said  premises  but  had  parted  with possession in  respect of  a substantial portion of the same in favour  of the  club. Hence, even if sub-lease on payment of rent  could not be established, such parting of exclusive possession would  amount sub-lease  within  the  meaning  of section 13(1)(e)  of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act.  This Court  has upheld  such finding  of the courts below  by indicating that clause (e) of Section 13(1) of the  said Act provides that a tenant would render himself liable for eviction if he has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with  the possession  of the whole or any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord.      The  learned  counsel  has  also  referred  to  another decision of  this Court  in M/s  Shalimar Tar  Products Ltd. versus H.C.  Sharma (AIR 1988 SC 145). In that case question of sub-letting  under Delhi  Rent Control  Act came  up  for consideration. In  that case,  the  tenant  allowed  a  club registered  under   the  Companies   Act  to  carry  on  its activities in  a major portion of the tenanted premises. The tenant himself  was also  a member  of  the  said  club  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

according to tenant he has also carried on his business from a portion  of the  tenanted premises.  The courts below held that by parting with possession exclusively in favour of the said club  in a  major portion  of the said premises, a sub- lease was  constituted in  favour of  the club. Accordingly, decree of  eviction was  passed. The  High Court also upheld such finding.  It has  been indicated  by this Court that in the context  of exclusive  possession of substantial portion of tenanted  premises by  the club  which had carried on its own activities,  the finding of the courts below that a case of sub-lease  was made out, is wholly justified. The learned counsel for  the appellant  has submitted that even if it is assumed that  the tenant  respondent No.1 had really carried on his  soap business in a portion of the suit premises, the admitted fact  remains that a distinct legal entity namely a registered society  had been given exclusive possession of a portion of the tenanted premises for carrying on its diverse activities and  such registered  society admittedly had been claiming an  independent right to hold the disputed premises as tenant  by paying  rent for the said premises through its President. Hence,  the finding  by the  Rent Controller that the tenant had sub-let the said premises is wholly justified and the decision of this Court in Shalimar’s case (supra) is applicable in  all fours.  The learned counsel has submitted that the impugned order should be set aside by affirming the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller.      The learned  counsel for  the  respondent  has  however refuted the  contentions of  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the tenant respondent No.1 has not parted with possession of the suit  premises in  favour of  Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti. The case  of the tenant is that the tenant is still carrying on the  business of  soap in  the said  premises but  in his anxiety to  ensure service  to the  rural copulation  of the locality he  had formed  a registered  society some  time in 1977 with  himself and  his family  members for  undertaking various beneficial  activities  for  the  rural  population. There has  not been  any assignment of the tenanted premises or any part thereof the said society. There has not been any payment of  rent by  the said society to the respondent No.1 tenant. As  a matter  of fact the activities of the firm are now being  discharged by  the said  society in  a bigger way with additional  members of the family. The tenant being the President of  the said society is controlling the affairs of the said  society. Even  if it  is  assumed  that  the  said society being  a distinct legal identity, its possession can not be  held to  be the  possession of the tenant respondent No.1 despite his being President of the said society, in the absence of any evidence as to letting out any portion of the said premises  to the said society on acceptance of rent, it should be  held that  the  said  society  is  in  permissive possession of  the said  premises. As  the  tenant  has  not parted with  possession of  the said premises or any portion thereof by  allowing the said society to possess the same in exclusion of the respondent No.1, no case of sub-tenancy can be  made  out.  Accordingly,  the  Appellate  Authority  has rightly held  that  the  case  of  sub-tenancy  can  not  be accepted. Such  finding of  the  Appellate  Authority  being wholly justified  in the  facts of the case, has been upheld by the High Court.      The learned  counsel for  the respondent  has submitted that the  landlord has not discharged the onus to prove sub- tenancy. The  landlord has  adjoining shops  and one of such shops is  in his  possession. Such fact has been admitted by the land  lord in  his deposition. The registered samiti was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

formed in  1977 and the said Samiti had been carrying on its activities openly  in the  said shop  room. The landlord has also been  accepting rent  from the  said Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti through  respondent No.1  who is the President of the said samiti.  In the  aforesaid circumstance,  the  landlord with full knowledge has allowed the said samiti to remain in possession of  the suit premises and having acknowledged the possession in  the said  samiti, has allowed the said samiti to pay  rent of  the  said  premises  in  its  name  through respondent No.1,  A decision of this Court in A.S. Sulochana versus C.  Dharmalingam (1987 (1) RCC 213) has been referred to by  the learned  counsel. This Court has indicated in the said case  that if  a sub-tenant  has remained in possession openly for  18 years  and if  the landlord has not taken any objection for  such long  possession as sub-tenant, it would give rise  to  inference  that  the  said  tenancy  was  not unlawful and  the tenant should not be evicted on the ground of sub-letting.  The learned  counsel has been occupying the tenanted premises  and has  been  carrying  on  its  diverse activities. The  landlord with  knowledge of such activities of the  samiti has  not raised any objection for a number of years and  only in  1986 the eviction suit was instituted by him. In  the aforesaid facts, such long possession openly by the said  samiti will  raise a reasonable inference that the sub-tenancy is not unlawful.      The  learned   counsel  for  the  respondent  has  also contended that  the respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant and the  said tenant  had been  carrying on  business in the name and  style of  Ashoka Jain  Industries  with  a  son  a partner. The  said partnership  firm had  only  changed  its nomenclature by  forming a registered society in the name of Mahavir Gram  Udyog Samiti. Since the activities of the firm were being carried in a new form, it should be held that for all practical purposes, the old firm of the tenant was there and there  has not  been any sub-letting simply because form of the legal entity and the name were changed. In support of such contention,  reliance has  been placed on a decision of this Court  in Madras  Bangalore  Transport  Company  versus Inder Sen (1986 (3) SCC 62). In the said case, a partnership firm was  carrying on  business of  transport as a tenant in the disputed  premises. In  order to circumvent a ban on the partners to operate transport business in a particular area, a private  limited company  was formed  with the partners as Directors of  the said  company. The  firm was  appointed as Agent of  the Company and the company was appointed as agent of the  firm. The  firm allowed  the said company to operate from the  tenanted premises  along with it. Both the company and the  firm had their sign boards at the premises and both of them were registered under the Shop and Establishment Act as having  their offices  in the  disputed premises.  In the aforesaid peculiar  facts., this  court has  held that there was no sub-letting, assignment or parting with possession of the premises in question by the firm to the Limited Company. This Court has held that in the facts of that case, the firm continued to be in possession of the premises even after the Private Limited  Company came into existence. The firm never effaced  themselves.  The  firm  allowed  the  said  Private Limited Company  to function  from the same premises but the Private Limited  Company though  a separate legal entity was fact a creation of the partners of the firm and was the very image of  the firm.  The Limited Company and the partnership firm were  two only  in name but one for practical purposes, there was  substantial identity  between the Limited Company and the  partnership firm. As such, even though the firm and the Company  were distinct legal entities, there was no sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

letting or  assignment etc.  In our  view, the  decision  in Madras Bangalore Transport Company’s case has no application in the  facts of  this case.  The Ashoka Jain Industries and Mahavir Gram  Udyog Samiti  are not  only two separate legal entities, their  composition are  different  and  nature  of activities are also not the same. The Ashoka Jain Industries is concerned with soap business but admittedly the samiti is concerned with various diverse activities including breeding of cows  and bulls.  The firm  is also  not the agent of the society and  vice versa. The society can not be held to be a creation of  the said  firm  or  image  of  the  said  firm. Moreover in  the written statement, it has been specifically averred that  the society  and not  the firm was paying rent through its President for the suit premises.      The  learned   counsel  for  the  respondent  has  also referred to  decisions in  Vishwanath versus Chaman Lal (AIR 1975 Delhi  117), since  referred to  with approval  in  the decision  of   this  Court  in  Madras  Bangalore  Transport Company’s case  (supra). In  Vishwanath’s  case,  Vishwanath took tenancy and was carrying on business in the name of M/s Interads International  Advertising  Agency  Pvt.  Ltd.  The tenant converted  his firm  as Interads  Advertising Pvt Ltd and landlord  issued  rent  receipts  in  the  name  of  the Interads Advertising  Pvt. Ltd.  In such  circumstances High Court negatived  the finding  of Rent  Controller  that  the tenant had sublet the premises. The learned counsel has also relied on  the decision  in M/s  Associated Tube Well Ltd.’s case (1984  (2) Rent  Control Report 449) by contending that the said decision was approved in Madras Bangalore Transport Company’s case  (supra). In  M/s Associated  Tube Well  Ltd. Company’s case,  the said M/s Associated Tube Wells Ltd took out tenancy  with a  right to sublet. The sub-letting was in favour of  M/s Clearing  House and  Agencies Pvt.  Ltd.  The original tenant  surrendered its  tenancy and as such direct relationship of  landlord and  tenant was created after such surrendering of  tenancy. In such circumstances, the case of sub-letting as  alleged by  the landlord  was disallowed. In our view, both the said decisions have no application in the facts of  this case.  In Vishwanath’s  case only the name of the business was changed and in the second case, there was a provision  for   sub-letting  and   original  tenant  having surrendered, by  payment and  acceptance of rent between the landlord and  sub-tenant a new tenancy directly in favour of the sub-tenant was created.      The learned  counsel for  the respondent  has submitted that in order to establish sub-tenancy, exclusive possession of the  alleged sub-tenant  with tenant retaining no control of the  premises should be established. The other ingredient of sub-tenancy  is that right to occupy the premises must be in lieu  of payment of some compensation or rent. In support of the  said contentions,  reliance was made to the decision of this  Court in Dipak Banerjee versus Lilabati Chakraborty (1987 (1)  SCC 161.  The learned  counsel has submitted that the respondent  No.1 has retained possession of the premises wherein he  carries on  the business  of soap and he has not carted with  possession on  acceptance of  any consideration from the  said samiti.  Hence, no case of sub-tenancy can be lawfully held  against the respondent. He has submitted that in the  aforesaid facts, the appeal should be dismissed with cost.      After giving  careful consideration  of the  facts  and circumstances of  the case  and the  submissions made by the learned counsel  for the  parties it  appears to us that the respondent No.1 took out the tenancy of the shop room in his personal capacity  in July  1973 and he had been carrying on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

business of  soap in  the name  and  style  of  Ashoka  Jain Industries. It  is the  case of the respondent No.1 that one of his sons also became partner of the said firm Ashoka Jain Industries. Latter  on, in  the year  1977, a society in the name Mahavir  Gram Udyog  Samiti was  formed and  registered under  the   Societies  Registration   Act.  Such   society, according to  case of respondent No.1. comprises of a number of members  drawn from the family of the respondent No.1 and including himself.  Admittedly, such society has been formed not  for  carrying  on  the  said  family  business  of  the Respondent No.1  but for  alleged diverse activities alleged to be  beneficial for  the rural  population in the locality namely khadi  activities, agriculture,  breeding of cows and pulls etc. etc.      It is  an admitted  position that  the said  registered society has  been carrying  on its diverse activities in the said shop  room. At  the relevant time, respondent No. 1 was the President  of the  said registered society and therefore had occasion  to control  and regulate the activities of the said  society.   It  appears  that  the  aforesaid  fact  of regulating  the  activities  of  the  said  society  by  the respondent No.1 in his capacity as the President of the said society, has weighed with the learned Appellate Authority in coming to  the finding  that the  said respondent  No.1  has retained his  possession of  the said shop room. But, in our view, the  Appellate Authority has failed to notice that the registered society  is a  distinct legal  entity. Its assets and liabilities belong to the said society which can sue and be sued in its name. The learned Rent Controller has rightly indicated that  from the  memorandum of  association of  the said registered  society, which  has been  exhibited in  the eviction case,  it clearly transpires that any member may be removed and  new members  may be taken in the society by the decision of 2/3rd majority of members. It is, therefore, not unlikely that  in course  of time,  the respondent  No.1  or their  family  members  may  not  be  members  of  the  said registered  society  and  such  society  may  be  run  by  a completely different  group  of  persons.  It  is  therefore immaterial whether  at the  time of  trial of  the  eviction proceedings, the  respondent No.1  had been  controlling the affairs of  the said  registered society  in his capacity as its President.      It may be indicated here that it is not the case of the respondent No.1 that the said registered society was allowed to possess the tenanted premises for carrying on its diverse activities only  as a  licence of  the respondent No.1 or of the said  firm Ashoka  Jain Industries. On the contrary, the specific case made out by the respondent No.1 in his written statement is  that the  firm Ashoka Jain Industries has been changed to  the registered  society in  the name  of Mahavir Gram Udyog  Samiti and  the said  society is  occupying  the tenanted premises  and carrying  on its  various  activities from the said premises by asserting its independent right as a tenant.  As a  matter of  fact, the  respondent  No.1  has averred in  the written  statement that  the said registered society has  been paying  rent for the tenanted premises not on behalf  of the  respondent No.1  or the  said Ashoka Jain Industries but  on its  own behalf  through  its  President, namely, the respondent No.1. On account of such assertion of independent  status   of  tenancy  by  the  said  registered society, a  case was sought to be made out by the respondent No.1 that  the landlord having accepted rent tendered in the name of  the said registered society is stopped from seeking eviction of  the respondent No.1 and the said society on the ground of sub-letting.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

    It appears  to us  that the  respondent  No.  1  in  an attempt to  show that  he had  not  completely  parted  with possession of the said shop room in favour of the registered society also  stated that  he had  been carrying on his soap business in  the said  premises, Such  case,  in  our  view, should not  be accepted.  The Respondent  No.1  has  clearly stated in  the written  statement that  the firm Ashoka Jain Industries was  changed to a registered specify and the said registered society is carrying on its activities in the shop room by  asserting its status as a tenant. The activities of the registered  society can  not  be  held  to  be  personal activities of the respondent No.1 or the alleged partnership business of  the firm  Ashoka Jain Industries. Even if it is assumed on  the face  value of  the assertion  of respondent No.1 that  he is  also carrying  on his soap business in the disputed premises,  in the  context of the written statement of the  respondent No.1.  it  only  follows  that  the  said registered society  is possessing  the tenanted  premises by asserting its independent status as tenant by tendering rent in  its   own  name  through  its  President  and  the  said respondent No.1  is in  permissive possession under the said society in  a portion  of the tenanted premises for carrying on his  personal business of soap. In any event, it is quite evident from the case made out by the respondent No.1 in the written statement  that he  has  surrendered  his  right  of tenancy  in   favour  of  the  registered  society  and  has delivered exclusive  possession of  the tenanted premises in favour of the said registered society which is occupying the same by asserting a right of tenancy. Hence, a case of lease without the  written consent  of landlord  as required under Section 14  of the  Rent Act for creating a valid assignment of sb-tenancy  has been  clearly established. Unfortunately, such position  in law  which is  apparent from the case made out by  the respondent  No.1 has  been lost sight of both by the learned Appellate Authority and by the High Court.      So far  as payment  of  rent  by  respondent  No.1  dua President of  the said  registered society and acceptance of such rent  tendered on  behalf of  the registered society by the landlord  with knowledge  of the  possession of the said shop room  by the  said society  are concerned,  it  may  be stated that  the tenancy  of respondent  No.1 had  not  been surrendered and  such surrender  of  tenancy  has  not  been accepted by the landlord. If upon accepting the surrender of tenancy of  the said  tenant, occupation  of a new tenant is acknowledged by  the landlord  by accepting  payment of rent from the  new tenant, then by such payment and acceptance of rent between  the tenant  and landlord, a new tenancy may be created.  By   a  unilateral   action  of   the  tenant   of surrendering his right of tenancy in favour of a third party by delivering  possession of  the tenanted  premises to  the said third  party, no  new  tenancy  is  created  which  may legally bind  the landlord.  By mere  acceptance of rent for the tenanted  premises tendered by the tenant in the name of the registered  society, neither  a new  tenancy or  a valid sub-tenancy in  favour of  the said  registered society  has been created. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of  this  Court  in  Hiralal  Kapur  versus  Prabhu Choudhury (1988 (2) SCC 172). In the said case rent was paid by two  cheques, one  drawn by the tenant himself for a part of the  rent, the  other was drawn by the sub-tenant for the remaining part  of the  rent. It has been held by this Court that the landlord was entitled to rent (Rs.600/-p.m.) and so long he  got this  amount, it was immaterial for him whether the amount was paid in lumpsum or by one cheque or more than one cheque  and who  the makers  of the cheque were. In that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

case, a  number  of  cheques  given  to  the  landlord  were returned dishonored  and the landlord wrote to the tenant in which he  specifically referred that five cheques were given by the sub-lessee. Even then, it has been held by this Court that such fact will not improve tenant’s position at all for it only  evidences the  fact that the landlord was receiving the cheque issued in the name of the sub-lessee in discharge of the  tenant’s obligation  to pay  rent for  the  tenanted premises.      The  Rent  Act  is  a  special  statute  governing  and regulating tenancy  and sub-tenancy.  Such provisions in the special statute  supersede the general law of tenancy if the provisions of  the special statute are incompatible with the general law  of tenancy.  Under Section  14 of the Rent Act, mere knowledge  of the  landlord  about  occupation  of  the tenanted  premises   by  the  said  registered  society  and acceptance of rent for the tenanted premises tendered by the tenant in  the name  of the  registered  society,  will  not create a  sub-tenancy unless  induction of  a sub-tenant  is made with  the  written  consent  of  the  landlord.  It  is nobody’s case  that  the  landlord  has  given  any  written consent for  induction of  sub-tenant. There  is no estoppel against statute.  Hence, even  if the  landlord has accepted payment of  rent for  the disputed  premises from  the  said society, such  acceptance of  rent will not constitute legal and valid  sub-tenancy in  favour of the registered society. Consequently, landlord  will not  be stopped  from  claiming eviction of  unauthorised sub-tenant  along with  the tenant for  indulging   in  inducting   sub-tenant  without  lawful authority.      We, therefore,  allow this  appeal and  set  aside  the impugned order  of the  High Court  and affirm  the order of eviction passed  against the  respondent by the learned Rent Controller. Nalagarh  in  case  No.  6/2  of  1986.  As  the eviction case  is pending  for a  long time,  it is directed that the  execution proceedings  should be  expedited. There will be, however, no order as to cost in this appeal.