9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Sub-letting without the written consent of the landlord. 2. User for non-residential purposes in violation of the Rent Act. 3. Payment of rent or consideration for sub-tenancy. Summary: Sub-letting without the written consent of the landlord: The main question in this appeal was whether the appellant had sub-let part of the premises to Lalit Mohan Biswas, who had established a tailoring business there, without the written consent of the landlord, violating section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956 (the 'Rent Act'). The trial court, the Additional District Judge, and the High Court all found that sub-letting had occurred based on evidence presented, including the presence of a sewing machine and the activities of Lalit Mohan Biswas. However, the Supreme Court found that there was no evidence that Biswas had exclusive possession of any part of the premises or that the tenant had relinquished control over any part of the premises. Therefore, the essential ingredient for proving sub-tenancy was not established. User for non-residential purposes in violation of the Rent Act: The appellant was also accused of allowing the premises, which were let out for residential purposes, to be used for non-residential purposes, specifically tailoring, in violation of section 13(1)(h) of the Rent Act. The Supreme Court noted that the sewing machine was used as part of the appellant's apparatus and not separately or independently, thus it did not constitute a change of user as defined in the Rent Act. Payment of rent or consideration for sub-tenancy: The court examined whether the services rendered by Lalit Mohan Biswas could be considered as rent under the Rent Act. The court concluded that services in lieu of money do not amount to rent under the Rent Act, as the Act envisions monetary consideration. The court referred to section 4, section 5(b), section 8, section 9, and other relevant sections of the Rent Act, which indicate that rent must be monetary. Therefore, the alleged sub-tenancy was not established as there was no agreed monetary rent or method of quantification. Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the findings of sub-letting and change of user by the lower courts were not supported by the essential ingredients required under the law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the High Court and the lower courts were set aside. The claim for ejectment was dismissed. However, the court directed an increase in rent from Rs. 250 to Rs. 350 per month from 1.8.87, with arrears to be paid by 31.8.87. There was no order as to costs.
|
