1971 (12) TMI 111 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Termination of tenancy by efflux of time.
2. Creation of a new tenancy by holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.
3. Requirement of six months' notice for termination of a tenancy for manufacturing purpose.
4. Bona fide requirement of the premises by the lessors for construction.
5. Sub-letting of the premises by the lessees.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Termination of Tenancy by Efflux of Time:
The original lease for the plot in question expired by efflux of time on 30-9-1958. Despite this, the lessees continued to remain in possession and paid rent at the rate of Rs. 75 per month. The lessors issued a notice on 7-8-1959 to terminate the tenancy by the end of September 1959, citing sub-letting and the need for the plot for construction. The trial court held that the tenancy had terminated by efflux of time, and the lessees continued in possession due to statutory immunity from eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (the Act).

2. Creation of a New Tenancy by Holding Over:
The appellants argued that a new tenancy was created by holding over under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the lessors accepted rent after the original lease expired. The trial court and the Full Bench of the Small Causes Court rejected this contention, stating that the lessees were not holding over within the meaning of Section 116, despite the acceptance of rent. The High Court upheld this decision, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das, which held that acceptance of rent after the expiry of a contractual tenancy does not create a new tenancy if the tenant enjoys statutory immunity from eviction.

3. Requirement of Six Months' Notice:
The appellants contended that the original lease was for a manufacturing purpose (erecting a sawmill), and thus, a new tenancy created by holding over would also be for a manufacturing purpose, requiring six months' notice for termination. The High Court disagreed, ruling that the lease for erecting a sawmill was not for a manufacturing purpose. Moreover, since no new tenancy was created by holding over, the question of six months' notice did not arise.

4. Bona Fide Requirement for Construction:
The trial court found that the lessors bona fide required the plot for constructing a new building under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act. This finding was upheld by the Full Bench of the Small Causes Court and the High Court. The bona fide requirement for construction was a valid ground for eviction under the Act.

5. Sub-letting of the Premises:
The lessees denied sub-letting the premises. The trial court held that there was no clear evidence of sub-letting, focusing instead on the lessors' bona fide requirement for construction as the primary ground for eviction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal. The Court concluded that no new tenancy by holding over was created under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, as the lessees' continued possession was due to statutory immunity, not a new contractual tenancy. Consequently, the requirement of six months' notice for termination of a tenancy for manufacturing purposes did not apply. The Court granted the appellants three months to vacate the premises, in accordance with their undertaking. The appeal was dismissed with costs.