9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 2. Requirement of subletting to be ongoing at the time of the suit for eviction. 3. Comparison of judgments regarding the meaning of "has sublet." 4. Impact of subletting on tenant's protection under the Act. Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The section deals with unlawful subletting by a tenant, which can lead to eviction. The appellant contested that the subletting must be ongoing at the time of the suit for the decree to be passed. 2. The appellant argued that since the sub-tenant vacated the premises before the suit was filed, the landlord was not entitled to a decree for possession. However, the High Court, relying on precedent, held that the phrase "has sublet" does not require the sub-tenancy to be in existence at the time of the suit. The key point was that subletting, once proven, creates a liability for eviction, regardless of the sub-tenant's current occupation. 3. A comparison was drawn between the decisions in this case and the judgment in Goppal v. Thakurji Shriji Shriji Dwarkadheeshji & Anr [1969] 3 S.C.R. 989. The Supreme Court in Goppal's case emphasized that subletting, even if done in the past, should be considered as long as it continues to impact the present situation. This principle was applied to the present case to establish the tenant's liability for eviction. 4. The final issue addressed the impact of subletting on the tenant's protection under the Act. The appellant's contention that a tenant could avoid liability by having the sub-tenant vacate before the suit was rejected. The High Court correctly ruled that once unlawful subletting is proven, the tenant becomes liable for eviction, irrespective of the sub-tenant's current occupancy status. This interpretation ensures that the Act's provisions are not circumvented by tenants attempting to evade eviction through temporary subletting arrangements. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision regarding the interpretation of Section 13(1)(e) and the liability of tenants for unlawful subletting under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
|
