Rent Control and Eviction:
West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 – s.13(1)(a) – Eviction suit – Claim of, on four grounds, default in payment of monthly rent, bonafide need, sub-letting and unauthorized construction in the suit shop by the tenant – Suit partly decreed against the tenant on the ground of sub-letting and unauthorized construction by the tenant in the suit shop – However, the High Court dismissed the suit holding that no ground of either sub-letting or an unauthorized construction was made out – On appeal, held: Even if the landlord is able to make out only one ground out of several grounds of the eviction, he is entitled to seek the eviction of his tenant from the suit premises on the basis of that sole ground – It is not necessary for the landlord to make out all the grounds which he has taken in the plaint for claiming eviction of the tenant under the Rent Act – On facts, landlords were able to prove the case of sub-letting against the tenant – In view thereof, it is not necessary to examine the other ground relating to making of unauthorized construction by the tenant in the suit shop – Thus, the order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Even if the landlord is able to make out only one ground out of several grounds of the eviction, he is entitled to seek the eviction of his tenant from the suit premises on the basis of that sole ground which he has made out under the Rent Act. It is not necessary for the landlord to make out all the grounds which he has taken in the plaint for claiming eviction of the tenant under the Rent Act. If one ground of eviction is held made out against the tenant, that ground is sufficient to evict the tenant from the suit premises. [Paras 16, 17][276-F-G]
1.2 Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 deals with the ground of sub-letting and provides that where the tenant or any person residing in the premises let to the tenant without the previous consent in writing of the landlord transfers, assigns or sublets in whole or in part the premises held by him, then it is a ground for the tenant’s eviction from the tenanted premises. Keeping in view the pleadings and the nature of the evidence adduced by the parties, the ground of sub-letting, as contemplated under Section 13(a) is made out. [Paras 3334][279-C-D]
1.3 In the first place, the respondent-tenant, since inception, was taking inconsistent stand on the question of sub-letting. The contradictory stand of the respondent and that too without any evidence clearly leads to an inference that the respondent was unable to prove, in categorical terms, as to which capacity, ‘JM’ was sitting in the suit shop - whether as an “employee” or a “business partner” or in any “other capacity”. Since the respondent had admitted the presence of JM in the suit shop, the burden was on him to prove its nature and the capacity in which he used to sit in the suit shop. If ‘JM’ was the respondent’s employee then, he should have proved it by filling a declaration form, which he had submitted under the Shops and Establishment Act to the authorities. But it was not done. Rather he admitted that he did not disclose the name of ‘JM’ in the declaration form. That apart, the respondent could have proved this fact by filing payment voucher, or any other relevant evidence to show that ‘JM’ was his employee and that he used to sit in the suit shop in that capacity only. It was, however, not done. [Paras 35, 38, 40 and 41][279-E, G-H; 280-B-C]
1.4 If ‘JM’ was a partner of the respondent in the tailoring business then the respondent could have proved this fact by filing a copy of the partnership deed. However, he again failed to produce the copy of partnership deed. In this way, he failed to prove even this fact. Appellants appear to have discharged their initial burden by pleading the necessary facts and then by proving it by evidence that firstly, they let out the suit shop to the respondent and secondly, the respondent has sub-let the suit shop to ‘JM’, who was in its exclusive possession without their consent. In other words, the sin qua non for proving the case of the subletting is that the tenant has either whole or in part transferred or/and parted with the possession of the tenanted premises in favour of any third person without landlord’s consent. [Paras 42,
43 and 45][280-D-F, G]
1.5 The appellants were able to prove the case of sub-letting against the respondent. The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the High Court cannot be concurred with and instead the conclusion of the trial court insofar as it relates to the ground of sub-letting is accepted. In view of this, it is not necessary to examine the other ground relating to making of unauthorized construction by the respondent in the suit shop. The impugned judgment is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. [Paras 50-51][282-C-D]
Bharat Sales Ltd. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1998) 3 SCC 1 : [1998] 1 SCR 711 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.