1991 (1) TMI 435 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the judgment of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Setting aside of concurrent finding of subletting by the High Court.
3. Burden of proof in cases of subletting.
4. Granting reasonable time for the respondent to vacate the premises.

Analysis:
1. The Civil Appeal was filed against the judgment of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision in a suit for recovery of possession of three shops in Bombay. The appellants claimed that the respondent had sublet the shops without consent, leading to eviction. The trial Court decreed in favor of the appellants, which was upheld in the appeal. However, the High Court set aside these decrees, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

2. The High Court set aside the finding of subletting by the lower Courts based on two grounds. Firstly, it suggested that the intention behind the agreements was for a leave and license, not a lease, as the alleged sub-tenants had vacated the premises. Secondly, it claimed that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the respondent. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the tenant's liability for eviction arises once unlawful subletting is proven, regardless of subsequent actions by sub-tenants. The Court cited precedent to support this view and emphasized that the burden of proof becomes irrelevant once evidence is admitted.

3. The Supreme Court found the grounds on which the High Court interfered with the lower Courts' decrees to be unsustainable. It ruled that the High Court erred in setting aside the decrees based on the burden of proof and the interpretation of the agreements. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the eviction decree against the respondent was reinstated with costs.

4. Regarding the respondent's request for time to vacate the premises, the Court granted an extension until January 31, 1993, allowing the respondent to continue business in the shops. The respondent was required to pay a specified rent per month and furnish an undertaking to vacate by the deadline. Failure to comply would result in immediate enforceability of the eviction decree.