1995 (1) TMI 385 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Deemed vacancy due to induction of a non-family partner.
2. Sub-letting and grounds for eviction under Section 25.
3. Tenancy status post the death of the original tenant.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deemed Vacancy Due to Induction of a Non-Family Partner
The dispute involves a shop in Allahabad where the original tenant, Sheobux Roy, passed away, leaving his sons as tenants. In 1976, Ganpat Roy, one of the sons, inducted his son-in-law, Swarup Kailash, as a partner in the business. The Rent Controller declared a deemed vacancy u/s 12(2) and 12(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The court held that the induction of a non-family member as a partner triggers the deeming provision of ceasing to occupy the building.

Issue 2: Sub-letting and Grounds for Eviction Under Section 25
The court examined Section 25, which prohibits sub-letting without permission. Explanation (i) to Section 25 states that if a tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building u/s 12(2), it is considered sub-letting. The court affirmed that the induction of Swarup Kailash as a partner amounted to sub-letting, making it a ground for eviction under Section 20(2)(e).

Issue 3: Tenancy Status Post the Death of the Original Tenant
The High Court had initially ruled that the sons became tenants-in-common after Sheobux Roy's death, meaning a contravention by one would not affect the others. However, the Supreme Court overturned this, referencing H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul, which held that heirs of a deceased tenant become joint tenants, not tenants-in-common. Thus, any breach by one heir affects the tenancy as a whole.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the Rent Controller's orders were restored. The respondents were given time until 30-6-1995 to vacate the premises, provided they filed an undertaking within four weeks.