1998 (11) TMI 673 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Eviction order quashed by High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Dispute over sub-letting and tenancy rights.
3. Interpretation of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
4. Validity of eviction decree based on unlawful subletting.
5. Sufficiency of averments in the plaint regarding subletting.
6. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227.

Analysis:
1. The landlords obtained an eviction order from the Court of Small Causes, which was confirmed in appeal but quashed by the High Court under Article 227. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against this decision.

2. The dispute involved the claim by the second respondent to be the daughter of the original tenant, Shanta Sabnis, and the contention that the first respondent was in possession under a leave and license agreement. The trial court found in favor of the landlords, holding that the first respondent's possession amounted to unlawful subletting.

3. The interpretation of Section 15A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 was crucial. The trial court rejected the first respondent's claim for protection under this section, concluding that his induction into the building constituted unlawful subletting.

4. The appellate authority upheld the eviction decree and extended it to include subletting to the third defendant, despite the sub-tenant having vacated the premises. The High Court, however, overturned these findings based on the absence of clear averments in the plaint regarding subletting.

5. The High Court's decision was primarily based on the insufficiency of averments in the plaint regarding subletting. The single judge emphasized the necessity of specific allegations in the pleading to establish unlawful subletting, which the landlords had failed to provide initially.

6. The High Court's intervention under Article 227 was deemed excessive as it exceeded its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disturbing the concurrent findings of the lower courts based on the adequacy of the averments in the plaint. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and reinstating the trial court's order.