2002 (2) TMI 1344 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and character of the lease agreement between the owners and Goyal.
2. Status of the occupants as sub-tenants or licensees.
3. Alleged subletting and material alterations in the leased premises.
4. Amendment of written statements by the occupants.
5. Grounds for eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Character of the Lease Agreement:
The primary issue was whether the lease agreement between the owners and Goyal was genuine or a sham transaction intended to circumvent the Rent Control Legislation. The High Court had concluded that the lease was a sham, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court emphasized that:
- The registered Deed of Lease between the owners and Goyal was genuine and not a sham transaction.
- The outward validity of the Lease Deed was upheld, and the transaction was not intended to avoid the Rent Control Legislation.

2. Status of the Occupants as Sub-Tenants or Licensees:
The occupants claimed they were licensees under agreements with Goyal and not sub-tenants. The Supreme Court found that:
- The agreements between Goyal and the occupants were consistent with subletting rather than licensing.
- The occupants' plea that the arrangement was a fraud on the Rent Act was not substantiated by the evidence.
- The occupants were indeed sub-tenants, making them liable for eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Act.

3. Alleged Subletting and Material Alterations:
The owners alleged that Goyal had sublet the premises and made material alterations without consent. The Supreme Court held:
- The construction of several cabins in the hall impaired the value and utility of the premises, fulfilling the grounds for eviction under Section 13(2)(iii).
- There was no sufficient evidence to support the claim that Goyal had oral consent from the owners for subletting and making changes.

4. Amendment of Written Statements by the Occupants:
The occupants sought to amend their written statements to claim Goyal was merely an agent for collecting rent. The Supreme Court criticized the lower courts' handling of this issue:
- The application for amendment did not meet procedural requirements, such as specifying the exact changes to the original pleadings.
- The High Court's cursory order allowing the amendment was deemed inappropriate.
- Despite the procedural flaws, the trial proceeded on the amended pleadings, and the occupants failed on merits.

5. Grounds for Eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949:
The Supreme Court found clear grounds for eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) and Section 13(2)(iii):
- Goyal had sublet the premises without written consent, violating Section 13(2)(ii)(a).
- The material alterations impaired the value and utility of the premises, justifying eviction under Section 13(2)(iii).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Appellate Authority's decision. The occupants were ordered to be evicted, and no costs were awarded. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules for amending pleadings and the necessity of substantial evidence to support claims of sham transactions and fraud on the Rent Act.