9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of eviction were again held against the appellants. Appellants then filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated December 22, 1995 by a learned single Judge of the High Court with only modification holding that the tenancy of the first respondent stood determined on April 17, 1982 and not on March 1, 1975 as was held by the lower appellate Court. While the High Court in the writ petition fixed the date determining the tenancy of the first respondent on which date appeal of the appellants was dismissed, the first appellate Court had fixed the date determineing the tenancy of the first respondent when notice issued by the appellants determined the tenancy of the first respondent. Suit premises is a shop in the city of Ahmad Nagar within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Appellants said that they had let out the shop premises to the respondent who unauthorisedly sublet the same to the second and third respondents. It has been held that the third respondent was an employee of the second respondent and this finding has not been challenged before us by the appellants. In the notice dated January 16, 1975 sent by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g by the first respondent to the second respondent but that subletting was before 1959. That being so, Section 14 of the Act comes into play and saves the second respondent from eviction. As noted above, High Court has held that the tenancy of the first respondent stood determined w.e.f. April 17, 1982 on the date when the first Appellant Court delivered judgment holding that the first respondent was liable to eviction on the ground under Section 12 of the Act. Now from this date it is the second respondent who becomes direct tenant under the appellants. Section 15 of the Act, as it now stands, provides that it shall not be lawful for the tenant to sublet the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein. After the commencement of the amending Act of 1973, a tenant is barred even to give on licence the whole or any part of the premises let to him. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 validates any sub-tenancy created before the first day of February 1973 and in that case a tenant is not liable to eviction under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act. We may at this stage refer to the relevant provisions of la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be made if tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay standard permitted increases. (1) A landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays, or is ready and willing to pay, the amount of the standard rent and permitted increases, if any and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, in so far as they are consistent with the provisions of this Act. (2) No suit for recovery of possession shall be instituted by a landlord against tenant on the ground of non-payment of the standard rent or permitted increases due, until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing of the demand of the standard rent or permitted increases has been served upon the tenant in manner provided in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Sub-section (3) of Section 12 as it stood before its amendment in 1986 was as follows:- 3(a) Where the rent is payable by the month and there is no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if such rent or increases are in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: - 14. Certain sub-tenants and licensees to become tenant on determination of tenancy. (1) When the interest of a tenant of any premises is determined for any reason, any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let before the 1st day of February 1973 shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms and conditions as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued. (2) Where the interest of a licensor, who is a tenant of any premises is determined for any reason, the licensee, who by section 15A is deemed to be a tenant, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord, on the terms and conditions of the agreement consistent with the provisions of this Act. When the Act was enacted a sub-tenant was saved from the eviction if sub-tenancy had been created prior to February 13, 1948. Under the Ordinance of 1959, which was subsequently replaced by the Bombay Act 49 of 1959, a lawful sub-tenancy created prior to May 21, 1959 was also saved. Again by the amending Act (Bombay Act 18 of 1987) lawful sub-tenancies creat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. Under Section 14 of the Act sub-tenant becomes tenant only after the tenancy of the tenant is determined. In the notice dated January 16, 1975, the appellants have claimed rent only from the first respondent. It is his tenancy which is determined and the allegation is that the first respondent inducted the second respondent to the suit premises. In the suit also it is the first respondent against whom ground for eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 12 of the Act is advanced. The first Appellate Court rightly held that a money decree for non-payment of rent cannot be passed against the second respondent when it was the first respondent who was in arrears of rent as claimed by the appellants and that the second respondent becomes liable to pay rent of the premises only from the date tenancy of the first respondent is determined. Then Mr. Jain wanted to invoke the doctrine of privity of estate and in that connection he referred to a decision of this Court in Surendra Kumar Jain vs. Royce Perira [(1997) 8 SCC 759]. In this case the Court said that findings as arrived at by the appellate court are findings of fact and were not liable to be interfered w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen the sub-tenant becomes tenant on the determination of the tenancy of the main tenant. Reference was also made by Mr. Jain to another decision of this Court in Arjun Khiamal Makhijani vs. Jamnadas C. Tuliani and others (1989 (4) SCC 612) to contend that it is not necessary for us to lean in favour of the tenant. We do not think this Court in any way said to that effect in that case for Mr. Jain to advance such a plea. That case was also under the Act where the Court was concerned with the effect of sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act before its amendment in 1986 as the decree in that suit for eviction had been executed when that provision was in force. The appeal before this Court was by the tenant and reliance was placed on sub-section (3) of Section 12 after its amendment in 1986. In that context this Court observed as under: - 7. Faced with this difficulty, learned counsel for the tenants urged that since the Act was a beneficial legislation the tenants having deposited the arrears of rent within the time granted by the Trial Court and having continued to deposit future rent thereafter the decree for their eviction deserves to be reversed by this Court. In so far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to various pleadings of the parties and how the matter reached this Court. The argument which this Court was considering was that Section 14 of the Act related to contractual tenancy and the interest of a tenant is determined as soon as notice determining the tenancy is given and, therefore, immediately the period fixed in the notice expires, the contractual tenancy comes to an end, and if there is a sub-tenant he becomes the tenant of the landlord on the same terms and conditions as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued. This Court observed as under:- We are of opinion that in the context of the Act this is not the meaning to be given to the words is determined for any reason . These words in the context of the Act mean that where the interest of a tenant comes to an end completely, the pre-existing sub-tenant may, if the conditions of s. 14 are satisfied be deemed to be a tenant of the landlord. The interest of a tenant who for purposes of S. 14 is a contractual tenant comes to an end completely only when he is not only no longer a contractual tenant but also when he has lost the right to remain in possession which s. 12 has given to him and is no l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act due to his failure to pay the arrears of rent. High Court said: Now, it would have been so under the ordinary law of landlord and tenant under which the sub- tenant cannot possess or claim any better or independent rights apart from the one that can be claimed through the main tenant. He has to sink or swim with the main tenant. But not so under the Rent Act. Defendant No. 2 is proved to have been a lawful sub-tenant. Sub-lease in his favour is proved to have been created before 1957. Definition of the word tenant, in s. 5(11)(a) includes sub-tenant inducted lawfully before the amendment of s. 15(2) of the Rent Act by Ordinance No. III of 1959. It will not make any difference as to whether sub-tenant is in possession of the whole or only a part of the premises leased to the tenant. Implication of this inclusive definition is that protection afforded to any tenant against his landlord under any provisions of the Rent Act, is also available to the sub-tenant against his lessor, the main tenant, in the same manner and to the same effect, as any other main tenant himself can claim against the landlord. By creating sub-lease before the date of Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ency on the sub-tenant and not on the landlord. No sub-tenant ever will be able to either claim tenants rights under s. 14 if his rights in the premises are to determine along with the tenant, for the landlords act or omission without his own any such failure, act, or omission. It shall also have to be borne in mind that s. 12(3) of the Rent Act, does not appear to aim so much at landlords right of resumption of the premises as at ensuring the receipt of the rent by him. Possession by the landlord in such contingency is more the result than the object. We may also refer to two more decisions of the Bombay High Court one rendered by the Division Bench in The Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Stores Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Bachoobai Cowsjee Dhanjeeshaw (1964 (66) Bom.L.R. 338), and another by single Judge in Mangharam Chubarmal vs. B.C. Patel (1971 (73) Bom.L.R. 140). In The Indian Coffee Workers Cooperative Stores Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Bachoobai Cowasjee Dhanjeeshaw [1964 (66) BLR 338] a Division Bench considered the scope of Section 14 of the Act and observed as under:- There is another aspect from which s. 14 must be considered. The right of the sub-tenant is subject to the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tenants tenancy is determined either by surrender or by a decree in ejectment passed against him that the sub-tenants become the lawful tenants of the landlord by virtue of s. 14 of the Rent Act. Once they get that legal status or character, then they are to hold the premises on the same terms and conditions as they held before subject to the other provisions of the Rent Act. But the words subject to the other provisions of the Rent Act will have to be understood as giving them the same rights and privileges as are conferred on the statutory tenants whose contractual tenancy for one reason or the other has come to an end. Then the learned single Judge referred to various grounds of eviction as given in Section 13(1) of the Act and sought to draw a distinction between the grounds which are concerned mainly with the premises and those, which are personal to the tenant. We need not, however, go into this question as to which grounds are personal to the tenant and which are mainly concerned with the premises and what are the grounds of eviction where tenant cannot get the protection. Learned single Judge in Mangharam Chubarmals case [1971 (73) BLR 140] then proceeded further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter at that and proceeded to decide the matter before him on other points and therefore, did not think it necessary to refer the matter to a larger Bench. We generally agree with the observations of the learned single Judge and may add one more illustration to one given by him. Clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act provides that a landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises if the court is satisfied that the premises were let to the tenant for use as a residence by reasons of his being in the service or employment of the landlord, and that the tenant has ceased, whether before or after the coming into operation of this Act, to be in such service or employment. When eviction is sought on this ground as given in clause (f) it is difficult to see how a sub- tenant can become a direct tenant of the landlord when the tenancy of the main tenant is determined. The exposition of law in the two aforesaid judgments of the Bombay High Court in Mangharam Chubarmal vs. B.C. Patel [1971 (73) BLR 140] and in Birdichand Hiralal Bhandari vs. Sadashiv Maruti Borhade (1972 (73) Bom.L.R. 887), which held the field for the last more than 25 years, is correct and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
