2001 (9) TMI 1172 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Sub-letting without landlord's consent.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.
3. Allegations of fraud and collusion in obtaining the eviction decree.
4. Right of sub-tenant to be impleaded in the original eviction suit.
5. Validity of eviction decree and its binding effect on the sub-tenant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Sub-letting without landlord's consent:
The appellant, owner of the premises, filed an ejectment suit against the first respondent, the tenant, alleging that the tenant had sub-let the premises to the second respondent without the appellant's consent, in violation of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, finding that the sub-letting was done without the landlord's written consent.

2. Compliance with statutory requirements under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956:
The Act mandates that sub-letting requires the landlord's previous written consent and notification to the landlord within one month of sub-letting. The trial court found that neither requirement was fulfilled by the second respondent, thus invalidating the sub-tenancy. The relevant sections cited were Section 14, which restricts sub-letting without written consent, and Section 16, which mandates notification of sub-tenancy.

3. Allegations of fraud and collusion in obtaining the eviction decree:
The second respondent claimed that the eviction decree was obtained by fraud and collusion between the appellant and the first respondent. The High Court remanded the matter to the executing court to decide on the allegations of fraud and collusion. However, the Supreme Court held that since the sub-tenancy was created without fulfilling the mandatory statutory requirements, the question of fraud and collusion became redundant.

4. Right of sub-tenant to be impleaded in the original eviction suit:
The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 13(2) of the Act, a sub-tenant who has not complied with Section 16 need not be made a party to the eviction suit. The second respondent's failure to comply with the statutory requirements meant that it had no legal right to be heard in the eviction proceedings against the original tenant.

5. Validity of eviction decree and its binding effect on the sub-tenant:
The Supreme Court upheld the eviction decree, stating that it was binding on the second respondent under Section 13(3) of the Act, which makes the decree binding on sub-tenants who have not complied with the statutory requirements. The Court found no evidence of the landlord's consent to the sub-letting and rejected the argument that the requirement of notice under Section 16 was directory rather than mandatory.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and upheld the trial court's judgment, confirming the eviction decree against the first respondent and binding the second respondent. However, considering the hardship to the second respondent, the Court allowed it to remain in the premises until 31.3.2002, provided it filed an undertaking and paid damages for use and occupation.

Final Order:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the trial court's judgment was upheld. The second respondent was granted time until 31.3.2002 to vacate the premises, subject to conditions. No costs were awarded.