9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Eviction under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 due to unauthorized sub-letting created before the Act came into force; Validity of sub-lease without landlord's consent; Effect of notice of termination on pre-existing sub-lease; Rights of sub-tenant independent of tenant; Surrender of tenancy rights and its impact on sub-tenancy; Protection under the Act for sub-tenants against eviction. Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal by a landlord against a High Court decision in an eviction suit under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The High Court allowed the revision, holding that eviction cannot be ordered under Section 13(2) as the sub-tenancy was created before the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The landlord had leased out premises to a tenant who sub-let to another without consent, leading to the eviction dispute. The landlord argued that the sub-lease was unlawful due to a clause in the lease deed prohibiting sub-leasing without consent. However, as the lease deed was not filed in court as evidence, this argument was dismissed. Another contention was that the sub-tenancy became unlawful after a notice of termination was served, but since the sub-lease predated the notice, it remained valid. The landlord also claimed that the sub-tenant was bound by the eviction order against the tenant, citing legal precedents, but these arguments were rejected. Regarding the surrender of tenancy rights, the court explained that a lease cannot be terminated in part, and a sub-lessee has rights under the Transfer of Property Act. The judgment clarified that the Act protects tenants, not sub-tenants, against unreasonable eviction, but in this case, the sub-tenant was challenging eviction under Section 13(2) due to the timing of the sub-lease. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the landlord's contentions and dismissed the appeal, with each party bearing their own costs.
|
