1967 (3) TMI 123 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Arrears of rent.
2. Sub-letting of premises.
3. Jurisdiction of appellate court.
4. Determination of tenancy and protection under Section 14 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Arrears of Rent:
The trial court held that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were not in arrears of rent. This finding was upheld by both the appellate court and the High Court. The High Court, however, revisited the issue, despite the concurrent findings of the lower courts, and concluded that the tenants-in-chief were in arrears and thus liable for eviction. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for interfering with the concurrent findings of fact without proper justification.

2. Sub-letting of Premises:
The trial court found that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had unlawfully sub-let the premises to the appellant. This finding was not challenged by the High Court, which accepted that the appellant was a sub-tenant and thus entitled to protection under Section 15(2) of the Act. The appellate court, however, took a different view, concluding that the appellant was a trespasser based on his own denial of being a sub-tenant, which the Supreme Court found to be a "curious view."

3. Jurisdiction of Appellate Court:
The appellate court's decision to order the eviction of the appellant on the grounds of being a trespasser was found to be beyond its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court, as a court of Extra Assistant Judge, could not have wider jurisdiction than the trial court, which was circumscribed by Section 28 of the Act. The appellate court's jurisdiction was limited to evicting a tenant or sub-tenant under the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, not a trespasser. The Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to order the eviction of the appellant as a trespasser in a suit brought under Section 28 of the Act.

4. Determination of Tenancy and Protection under Section 14:
The High Court's interpretation of Section 14 of the Act, which provides protection to sub-tenants, was scrutinized. The respondents argued that the appellant became a tenant-in-chief upon the determination of the tenancy by notice on November 30, 1956. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 14 protects sub-tenants only after the contractual tenant's interest has completely ended, which includes the loss of the right to remain in possession under Section 12. The appellate court did not order the eviction of the tenants-in-chief, and thus, the appellant could not be deemed a tenant-in-chief under Section 14. The Supreme Court concluded that without the eviction of the tenants-in-chief, the appellate court had no jurisdiction to evict the sub-tenant alone.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the appellate court, and restored the judgment of the trial court. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for ejectment against the appellant as a trespasser and that the High Court should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact regarding the arrears of rent.