9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Bona fide requirement for eviction. 2. Violation of Section 108(m)(o)(p) of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. Subletting without consent. 4. Abatement of the suit due to the death of the original defendant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bona fide Requirement for Eviction: The plaintiff initially sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement. However, during the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that he no longer pressed this ground. Consequently, the court held that no decree for eviction could be passed on the basis of bona fide requirement. 2. Violation of Section 108(m)(o)(p) of the Transfer of Property Act: The plaintiff alleged that the tenant had made illegal constructions on the premises, violating Section 108(m)(o)(p) of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the defendant denied these allegations. An issue was framed to determine if the defendant had damaged the property by way of addition or alteration. This issue was not pressed by the plaintiff in the trial court, but the appellate court granted a decree on this ground. The High Court held that since the issue was abandoned in the trial court, it was improper for the appellate court to decide on it. Therefore, no decree for eviction could be passed on this ground. 3. Subletting Without Consent: The plaintiff claimed that the original defendant had sublet part of the premises to Dr. A. G. Roy without written consent. The defendant argued that he and Dr. Roy had a joint tenancy from the inception. The trial court found that the defendant had admitted to paying rent in his name and that Dr. Roy had exclusive possession of part of the premises. The court concluded that the defendant had surrendered part of his tenancy to Dr. Roy, constituting subletting. The appellate court affirmed this finding, noting that the defendant and Dr. Roy were paying rent jointly and that the tenancy was not a joint tenancy but solely in the name of the original defendant. The appellate court also noted that the defendant had parted with possession and realized rent from Dr. Roy. The High Court upheld these findings, rejecting the arguments of waiver and benami raised by the defendant. The court emphasized that written consent for subletting is mandatory and mere knowledge or acquiescence by the landlord does not constitute consent. Therefore, the decree for eviction on the ground of subletting was upheld. 4. Abatement of the Suit Due to the Death of the Original Defendant: The defendant argued that the suit had abated due to the death of the original defendant and the failure to file an application for substitution within the prescribed period. The plaintiff had filed an application for substitution, which was initially incomplete but later supplemented with the date of death. The trial court allowed the substitution, and the appellate court upheld this decision. The High Court found that the plaintiff had acted upon the information provided by the defendant's lawyer and that the delay in providing the date of death was satisfactorily explained. The court held that the application for substitution could be treated as an application for setting aside abatement and that the courts below had not acted illegally or without jurisdiction in allowing the substitution. Therefore, the argument of abatement was rejected. Conclusion: The High Court affirmed the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, upholding the eviction on the ground of subletting. The appeal was dismissed, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises by the end of December 1997, subject to certain conditions. The application for considering subsequent events was also disposed of. There was no order as to costs.
|
