1987 (11) TMI 394 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the eviction petition in the absence of a notice to quit.
2. Alleged sub-letting or parting of possession by the appellant-tenant.
3. Validity of sub-letting with the written consent of the landlord.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Eviction Petition:
The appellant did not raise the issue of the absence of a notice to quit before the Supreme Court. The High Court and the Rent Control Tribunal had previously dismissed this contention.

2. Alleged Sub-letting or Parting of Possession:
The appellant contended that there was no sub-letting or parting of possession in favor of R.C. Abrol & Company Pvt. Ltd. The Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court found against the appellant on this issue. The Supreme Court noted that the lease deed's Clause 14 prohibited sub-letting without the written permission of the lessor, except for sharing the premises with M/s R.C. Abrol & Co. The Court held that the sub-letting must be with the specific written consent of the landlord, which was not present in this case. The Court referenced several precedents, including South Asia Industries Private Ltd. v. S. Sarup Singh, to support its interpretation that the consent must be specific and in writing.

3. Validity of Sub-letting with Written Consent:
The appellant argued that the requirement for written consent was directory, not mandatory. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the written consent requirement served a public purpose to avoid disputes. The Court emphasized that there was no implied permission and that the landlord had objected to the sub-letting upon realization. The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that retaining the key indicated no sub-letting, affirming that legal possession had been transferred to R.C. Abrol & Co. Pvt. Ltd., as evidenced by the company's liquidation proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, confirming the eviction order. The Court directed that the eviction decree would not be executed before 30.6.1988, provided the appellant complied with specific conditions, including filing an undertaking, paying mesne profits, and not inducting any other person into the premises. The appeal was dismissed.