1982 (4) TMI 287 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Proper construction of the terms of tenancy.
2. Applicability of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
3. Grounds for eviction: wrongful sub-letting and non-payment of rent.
4. Legality of sub-letting under the terms of the tenancy and the Act.
5. Determination of the timing of sub-tenancies.
6. Validity of evidence, specifically tape-recorded conversations.
7. Continuation of tenancy rights after the expiry of the contractual period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Proper Construction of the Terms of Tenancy:

The appellant occupied the premises as a tenant from April 1, 1974, under a rent note dated April 2, 1974. The rent note included terms such as a monthly tenancy, a fixed rent of Rs. 450 per month, and the tenant's right to sub-let the flat and Barsati portions. The tenancy was initially for one month, ending on April 30, 1974.

2. Applicability of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949:

The landlady filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent and sub-letting. The Rent Controller ordered eviction only on the ground of sub-letting. The tenant's appeals to the Appellate Authority and the High Court were dismissed, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

3. Grounds for Eviction: Wrongful Sub-letting and Non-payment of Rent:

The Rent Controller dismissed the ground of non-payment of rent but ordered eviction based on sub-letting. The Appellate Authority and the High Court upheld this decision. The Supreme Court needed to determine if the sub-letting was wrongful under the Act.

4. Legality of Sub-letting under the Terms of the Tenancy and the Act:

The tenant argued that Clause 8 of the rent note explicitly allowed sub-letting of the flat and Barsati portions. The tenant contended that the sub-letting was done with the landlady's written consent, as required by Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act, and thus could not be a ground for eviction.

5. Determination of the Timing of Sub-tenancies:

The Supreme Court remitted the issue of when the sub-tenants were inducted to the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller found that sub-letting occurred in May 1974, but this finding was disputed. The Supreme Court concluded that there was no proper evidence to support the Rent Controller's finding and that the sub-letting occurred in April 1974, during the contractual tenancy.

6. Validity of Evidence, Specifically Tape-recorded Conversations:

The Rent Controller's finding was based on a tape-recorded conversation, which the Supreme Court deemed inadmissible as primary evidence. The Court held that tape-recorded conversations could only be used as corroborative evidence and, in the absence of direct evidence of the conversation, could not be relied upon.

7. Continuation of Tenancy Rights after the Expiry of the Contractual Period:

The tenant argued that even after the expiry of the contractual tenancy, the tenancy continued under the Act on the same terms and conditions, including the right to sub-let. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the Act protects tenants from eviction except in accordance with its provisions. The Court held that lawful sub-letting with the landlord's written consent does not become unlawful merely because the contractual tenancy has ended.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court concluded that the tenant lawfully sub-let the premises with the landlady's written consent during the contractual tenancy in April 1974. The mere continuance of sub-tenants in possession after April did not constitute wrongful sub-letting. The landlady had no valid ground for eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order set aside. The tenant was granted costs.

Appeal allowed.