1974 (8) TMI 107 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellants.
2. Whether the appellants had the right to sub-let the premises under the contract of lease.
3. Whether the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, superseded the contract of tenancy.
4. Whether the repeal of the Saurashtra Act affected the rights and liabilities under the former Act.
5. Whether the landlord had an accrued right to recover possession under the Saurashtra Act after its repeal.
6. Whether a notice under the Transfer of Property Act was necessary to terminate the tenancy on the ground of sub-letting.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellants:
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, thereby upholding the District Judge's judgment in favor of the respondent for possession of the suit premises. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, affirming that the landlord had an accrued right to recover possession under the Saurashtra Act despite its repeal.

2. Whether the appellants had the right to sub-let the premises under the contract of lease:
The trial court initially held that the contract of tenancy contained no prohibition against sub-letting, thus dismissing the suit. However, the District Judge later ruled that Section 15 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, which prohibited sub-letting, superseded the contract of tenancy.

3. Whether the Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951, superseded the contract of tenancy:
Section 15 of the Saurashtra Act prohibited sub-letting notwithstanding any contract to the contrary. Therefore, the landlord obtained the right to recover possession under Section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act, which was not subject to any contract to the contrary.

4. Whether the repeal of the Saurashtra Act affected the rights and liabilities under the former Act:
The District Judge held that the repeal of the Saurashtra Act by the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, did not affect the rights, privileges, obligations, or liabilities acquired under the former Act. Section 51 of the Bombay Act preserved these rights, allowing the landlord to enforce the liability of the appellants to ejectment under Section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act.

5. Whether the landlord had an accrued right to recover possession under the Saurashtra Act after its repeal:
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the landlord had an accrued right within the meaning of Section 51, proviso (2) of the Bombay Act, and thus could file a suit for recovery of possession under Section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the right to recover possession accrued when the tenant sub-let the premises during the currency of the Saurashtra Act, and this right survived the repeal.

6. Whether a notice under the Transfer of Property Act was necessary to terminate the tenancy on the ground of sub-letting:
The Supreme Court clarified that under the Transfer of Property Act, sub-letting by a tenant is not a ground for terminating the tenancy unless the contract of tenancy prohibits it. Since the contract did not prohibit sub-letting, the landlord could not have issued a notice under the Transfer of Property Act to terminate the tenancy. However, under Section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act, the landlord was entitled to recover possession on the ground of sub-letting without needing to issue a notice to terminate the tenancy.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, affirming that the landlord had an accrued right to recover possession under Section 13(1)(e) of the Saurashtra Act, which survived the repeal of the Act. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →