9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a statutory tenant has the power to sub-let the premises. 2. The interpretation of Section 13(1)(e) and Section 14 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 3. The applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding lis pendens. 4. The effect of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959 on sub-letting by statutory tenants. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether a statutory tenant has the power to sub-let the premises: The court examined whether a statutory tenant, who remains in possession after the expiry of the lease, has the authority to sub-let the premises. The landlords contended that a statutory tenant has no interest in the premises and thus cannot sub-let. However, the court found that the Act contemplates a statutory tenant having the power to sub-let, as indicated by Section 13(1)(e). The term "tenant" in the Act includes both statutory and contractual tenants unless the context otherwise requires. The court noted that the Act creates rights in the tenant, such as the right to maintain an action for trespass, which implies an interest in the property sufficient to allow sub-letting. 2. Interpretation of Section 13(1)(e) and Section 14: Section 13(1)(e) of the Act states that a landlord can recover possession if the tenant has unlawfully sub-let the premises. The court interpreted this section to include statutory tenants within its scope. The court rejected the landlords' argument that "tenant" in this section only refers to contractual tenants. The court also examined Section 14, which provides that a sub-tenant to whom the premises were lawfully sub-let before the commencement of the 1959 Ordinance shall be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord upon the determination of the interest of the original tenant. The court concluded that the sub-letting to the appellant was lawful under Section 14, as the sub-letting occurred before the 1959 Ordinance. 3. Applicability of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act: The landlords argued that the sub-letting was affected by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The court clarified that Section 52 does not make any transfer of property illegal but merely ensures that the rights of the decree-holder under the decree are not affected by the transfer. The court held that the sub-letting to the appellant was not unlawful or invalid under Section 52, as the appellant, being a lawful sub-tenant, was not bound by the decree obtained by the landlords against the original tenant. 4. Effect of the 1959 Ordinance on sub-letting by statutory tenants: The court examined the impact of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, which amended Section 15 of the Act. The court found that the Ordinance validated certain sub-lettings by contractual tenants despite any prohibition in the original contract or the Act. However, the court concluded that the Ordinance did not affect the appellant's status as a lawful sub-tenant, as the sub-letting occurred before the Ordinance's commencement. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as a lawful sub-tenant, became the direct tenant of the landlords under Section 14 of the Act. The statutory tenant had the power to sub-let the premises, and the sub-letting was not affected by the principle of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. The 1959 Ordinance did not invalidate the sub-letting to the appellant.
|
