TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the landlady of the premises. The landlady filed her present petition (R.A. No. 163 of 1977) in the Court of Rent Controller Chandigarh, under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of the tenant on two grounds, namely, non-payment of rent and sub- letting of the flat portion and Barsati portion of the premises. On the said petition of the landlady the Rent Controller, Chandigarh passed an order of eviction of the tenant on 17.11.1977 only on the ground of sub-letting. The other ground, namely non-payment of rent by the tenant, did not S succeed. Against the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal under S. 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 9.8.1978 dismissed the appeal of the tenant and upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Against the judgment and order of the appellate authority, the tenant filed a revision petition under S. 15 of the Act before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court by its judgment dated 19.9.78 dismissed the said petition. Aggrieved by the judgment and orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied- (i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building or rented land within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid. (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord- (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof; or x x x x x x x ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome into operation in Chandigarh and had become applicable to the premises in question. lt is Mr. Tarkunde's argument that in view of the prohibition on sub-letting without the consent of the landlord in writing contained in the Act, the landlady in the instant case has in writing expressly authorised the tenant to sub-let the flat portion and the Barsati portion of the said promises, so that the tenant does not come within the mischief of the said provision. Mr. Tarkunde contends that it is not in dispute that the tenant had sublet the flat portion and the Barsati portion of the premises in terms of the authority given to the tenant in writing and as the sub-letting has been done by the tenant with the written consent of the landlady after the commencement of the Act and of the portions the tenant was authorised to sub-let, there can be no violation of the provisions of S. 13 (2) (ii) (a) of the Act. It is the contention of Mr. Tarkunde that as the subletting was done by the tenant in terms of the written authority given by the landlady to the tenant, the subletting can constitute no ground for eviction of the tenant within the meaning of the said section of the Act and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tenants continue to enjoy possession in their own right as sub-tenant and the tenant who has inducted the sub tenants cannot and does not enjoy any power or authority of evicting the sub-tenant except in due process of law. In this connection Mr. Tarkunde has drawn our attention to the definition of 'landlord' and also of 'tenant' as given in S. 2 (c) and (i) of the Act. The definition of the landlord as given in S. 2 (c) is as follows : 'landlord' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sub-lets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and, every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord . The definition of tenant as mentioned in S. 2 (i) reads: 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thought it fit to review all the decisions and lay down a uniform law for all the States. Section 10 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Act provided that A tenant shall not be evicted whether in execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of this section or sections 12 and 13. A special provision in the Andhra Act was contained in section 10 (7) which says : 'Where an application under sub-section (2) or sub section (3) for evicting a tenant has been rejected by the Controller, the tenancy shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to continue on the same terms and conditions as before and shall not be terminable by the landlord except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3). This special provision is provided by way of abundant precaution only. Even without this a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the contractual tenancy and until an eviction order is passed against him continues on the same terms and conditions as before and he cannot be evicted unless a ground is made out for the eviction according to be the State Rent Act. Relying on the aforesaid observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 2 (i) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 defines 'tenant' to mean, unless the context otherwise requires: 'a person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any accommodation is, or, but for a contract express or implied, would be payable for any accommodation and includes any person occupying the accommodation as a sub-tenant and also any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy whether before or after the commencement of this Act; but shall not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made'. The definition makes a person continuing in possession after the determination of his tenancy a tenant unless after a decree or order for eviction has been made against him, thus putting him on par with a person whose contractual tenancy still subsists. The incidents of such tenancy and a contractual tenancy must therefore be the same unless any provision of the Act conveyed a contrary intention. That under the Act such a tenant retains an interest in 13 the premises, and not merely a personal right of occupation, will also appear from section 14 which contains provisions restri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onversation may be used only as a corroborative evidence of such conversation deposed to by any of the parties to the conversation and in the instant case in the absence of any such evidence the tape-recorded conversation is indeed no evidence and cannot be relied upon. Mr. Tarkunde, in support of this argument has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab. Mr. Tarkunde has further argued that even if reliance is to be placed on the tape-recorded conversation, it must then be held on the basis of the evidence recorded therein that the contractual tenancy had continued beyond the period of the month of April. According to Mr. Tarkunde, in the present case the landlady had not merely accepted the rent which the landlady bad in fact done, on the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy, but the tape-recorded conversation clearly indicates that the tenancy was treated as continuing between the parties, notwithstanding the expiry of the period and the tenant was recognised as tenant with lawful authority to sub-let even after the expiry of the month of April, 1974. Mr. Tarkunde on the basis of the aforesaid contention has submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of April or thereafter, brings the case within the mischief of S.13 (2) (ii) (a) and renders the tenant liable to eviction on the ground of illegal sub- letting. It is his submission that if there be any sub- tenants in occupation or possession of any portion of the said premises after the contractual tenancy had come to an end the subletting must be held to be without the written consent of the landlord and as such wrongful and illegal to enable the landlord to evict the tenant on the ground of such subletting. Mr. Mehta has submitted that this view which has been consistently held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, has also been followed by the High Court in the instant case. In support of this submission Mr. Mehta has referred to the decision in the case of Kartar Singh and others v. Tarlok Singh and others which has been referred by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal. Mr. Mehta has also relied on the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shri Kidar Nath v. Smt. Kartar Kumar, and also in the case of Gurdas Ram v. Hans Raj. According to Mr. Mehta, this view has held the field in Punjab and Haryana all these years and this is the settled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bletting may operate. Mr. Mehta has commented that this decision of this Court was not considered by this Court in the case of Damadi Lal and ors v. Parasram and ors.(supra). Mr. Mehta has further argued that it is well settled that mere acceptance of rent on the determination of the contractual tenancy by efflux of time or otherwise does not in the absence of something more have the effect of creating a fresh tenancy or continuing the contractual tenancy already determined; and it is his argument that it cannot be said that a fresh tenancy was created or the tenancy was allowed to continue on the expiry of the month of April merely because the landlady had accepted the rent from the tenant on the expiry of the period of the tenancy after the month of April. Mr. Mehta, therefore, submits that in the instant case the order for eviction has been rightly passed and this appeal should be dismissed. Before we proceed to consider the main question involved in this appeal, namely, whether the existence of sub-tenants in the premises after the expiry of the term of contractual tenancy, necessarily renders the subletting illegal and furnishes a ground for eviction within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l on the determination of the tenancy and furnishes a ground for eviction within the meaning of S. 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act. S. 13(2) (ii) (a) which we have earlier set out lays down that if a tenant after the commencement of the Act has without written consent of the landlord transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or any portion thereof, the tenant shall be Liable to be evicted on the ground of such subletting. The requirement of the section, therefore, is that after the commencement of 'the Act there has to be subletting by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord to enable the landlord to recover possession of the premises on the ground of subletting It, therefore, necessarily follows that if after the commencement of the Act, the tenant has sublet with the written consent of the landlord, such subletting will not furnish any ground or clause of action for the eviction of the tenant by the landlord. It is to be noted that after the tenant has lawfully sublet with the written consent of the landlord, sub-tenant becomes a lawful sub-tenant; and as such he becomes a 'tenant' within the meaning of the Act under the tenant as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... landlady in the P month of April and has not sublet any portion on the expiry of the month of April. The argument of the learned counsel for the landlady that on the expiry of the month of April, the consent of the landlady in writing stands withdrawn is of no consequences. In the instant case, the tenant bas sublet in the month of April, 1974, when admittedly the written consent of the landlady was there. The continuance in possession of such subtenants in the portions lawfully let out to them on the expiry of the month of April does not amount to or have the effect of any fresh sub-letting by the tenant on the expiry of the month of April; and, it cannot be said that the tenant has sublet afresh on the expiry of the month of April. The right of possession that the sub- tenants enjoy on the basis of lawful induction as sub-tenants is assured to the sub-tenants as a tenant within the meaning of the Act. As a tenant. in spite of the determination of his tenancy continues the right to remain in possession as a statutory tenant and enjoys the protection against eviction by virtue of the provisions contained in the statute, a sub-tenant who is lawfully inducted, is also recognised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
