By Dr. K. Shivaram, Ajay R. Singh, Advocates
New Page 1
10 Tenancy : Tenant can be evicted if
subletting is done without the consent in writing of the landlord.
The appellant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant in the year 1956
by the erstwhile owners of the suit shop. He was all along in continuous
possession of the suit shop and was conducting the business from the same along
with his brother, under the name and style of M/s. Mitra Book Depot. The rent
receipts issued by the landlord were in the name of M/s. Mitra Book Depot as
tenant.
Subsequently, a business was started in a portion of the suit
shop in the name of M/s. Mitra Stores and M/s. Lucky Confectioners being
appellants 2 to 4. In the year 2000, the owners sold the suit shop to one Anil
Anand. However, the rent of the suit shop was continued to be paid to erstwhile
owners by the appellant. Mr. Anil Anand sold the suit shop to the respondent by
a registered deed of sale in year 2000. However, the appellant No. 1 went on
depositing the rent in the name of the original landlord. Finally, in February,
2002, the respondent filed an eviction petition before the Rent Controller,
Delhi u/s.14(1)(b) of the Act on the ground of subletting by the appellant No.
1. The Rent controller passed the order of eviction by holding, inter alia,
that the case of subletting was duly proved as from the evidence on record, both
oral and documentary, it was clear that an independent business was run by the
appellants and that they were in exclusive possession of a portion of the suit
shop.
The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Delhi and the High Court dismissed the same.
S. 14(1)(b) of the Act, reads as under :
“That the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June,
1952, sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or
any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the
landlord.”
On further appeal the Supreme Court observed that if a tenant
had sublet or assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or
any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the
landlord, he would be liable to be evicted from the said premises as per S.
14(1). That is to say, the following ingredients must be satisfied before an
order of eviction can be passed on the ground of subletting :
(1) the tenant has sublet or assigned or parted with the
possession of the whole or any part of the premises;
(2) Such subletting or assigning or parting with the
possession has been done without obtaining the consent in writing of the
landlord.
In Kailasbhai Shukaram Tiwari v. Jostna Laxmidas Pujara
and Anr., Manu/SC/2529/2005, while dealing with a case of subletting under
the Bombay Rules, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (57 of 1947),
the Apex Court observed that the question as to whether a person is a member of
the family of the tenant must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the
case. It observed in paragraph 14 as follows :
“Apart from the parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, sons
and daughters, if any other relative claims to be a member of the tenant’s
family, some more evidence is necessary to prove that they have always resided
together as members of one family over a period of time. The mere fact that a
relative has chosen to reside with the tenant for the sake of convenience,
will not make him a member of the family of the tenant in the context of rent
control legislation.”
In the facts of the case, the appellant No. 1 had parted with
the exclusive possession of a part of the suit premises in favour of the
appellant Nos. 2 to 4 without obtaining the consent in writing, either of the
erstwhile landlord or the purchaser respondent, nor the appellant could prove
that appellant nos. 2 to 4 being the family members were assisting him it the
business, hence the appeal was dismissed.
[Vaishakhi Ram & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani, Civil Appeal No. 1559
of 2008, dated 25-2-2008, Supreme Court of India.]
