Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – s.11(4)(i) – Eviction of tenants – Sub-tenancy – Appellants-owners alleged that respondents-tenants stopped the payment of rent of three shop room premises, defined as room nos. 3/471, 3/472 and 3/476, and it was also alleged that two shops were sublet by the respondent without the consent of the appellants – The appellants sent a legal notice dated 15.12.1987 demanding surrender of possession of suit shop rooms and arrear of rent, and ultimately filed an eviction petition before the Rent Control Court – The Trial Court found against the appellants on all grounds except nonpayment of rent while granting a decree of eviction for all the three shops – The Appellate Authority found bonafide need of appellant in respect of room no. 3/472 and sub-letting in respect of room no. 3/476 was proved – Thus, eviction was granted by the Appellate Authority in respect of room nos. 3/472 and 3/476 – The High Court in the cross- revision petitions sustained eviction order only qua room no. 3/476 on the ground of sub-letting – Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that u/s. 11(4)(i) of the Act, even if the sub-tenancy is created in part of the premises, the entitlement of eviction is in respect of the whole of the premises – The respondents dissuaded from examination of this plea in view of it not having been raised at an earlier stage and thus, no factual basis being laid for the same – Held: On the legal principle, a pure question of law can be examined at any stage, including before the Supreme Court – If the factual foundation for a case has been laid and the legal consequence of the same have not been examined, the examination of such legal consequence would be a pure question of law – The finding of fact in the instant case was not required to be closely scrutinised as the essential facts, which were analysed by the Courts below, clearly show the existence of a single tenancy – Issuance of a single notice and the filing of a single eviction petition, albeit raising different grounds for different portions of the premises, is an undisputed fact – Further, under the statute, sub-letting of any part of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction from the whole premises – Thus, the appellants entitled to a decree of eviction for the entire premises, mentioned as tenanted premises, on the ground of the respondents having sub-let a part of the premises.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The judicial pronouncements of this Court in M. Meeramytheen & Ors. v. K. Parameswaran Pillai & Ors. which deals with the very Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. In the facts of that case, one single tenancy was created in relation to two shop rooms, while sub-tenancy was created in respect of one of the two shop rooms by the tenant. Much later, a partition was effected by virtue of which the two shops were allotted to the share of different co-sharers who joined together in the suit proceedings seeking eviction of tenants as sub-lessees. It was held that it could not be said that on account of the partition, the original tenancy was divided and therefore, eviction could be ordered only in respect of one of the rooms that was actually sublet, more so when the cause of action had arisen prior to the partition. The appellate court and the High Court, having granted a decree of eviction only with respect to one shop, was stated to be a legal error committed and, thus, eviction was granted in respect of both the shops on the ground that one of the shops was sub-leased, in view of the provision of the Act. [Para 13] [974-C-E]
M. Meeramytheen & Ors. v. K. Parameswaran Pillai & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 359 – relied on.
2. The aforesaid judgment, covers the legal principle on all fours. A bare reading of sub-para (i) of sub-section (4) of Section
11 of the said Act leaves no manner of doubt that the cause arises upon the tenant transferring his rights under a lease and sub-lets the entire building “or any portion thereof”, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. The proviso requires that the landlord should have sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and upon the tenant failing to terminate the transfer or the sublease, as the case may be, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notice, an application for eviction could be made by the landlord. Thus, sub-letting of any part of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction from the whole premises. That is how the statute reads and that is also, a reasonable interpretation of the same, as, if one tenancy is created it would not be appropriate to pass eviction order only in respect of a part thereof, and not the whole. The provision reading clearly, and in view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, there is no doubt about this proposition. This is not a case of bona fide requirement. The findings of fact in this case are not required to be closely scrutinised as the essential facts, which have been analysed by the courts below, clearly show the existence of a single tenancy. Issuance of a single notice and the filing of a single eviction petition, albeit raising different grounds for different portions of the premises, is an undisputed fact. Thus, the appellant is not expected to allege sub-letting of the whole premises if the sub-letting is only in part of the premises. No doubt the appellants have not specifically claimed that by subletting a portion, the whole premises is liable to be vacated, but then that is the legal consequence as is emerging from the legal position. [Para 14][974-F-G; 975-A-D]
3. Thus, the appellants are entitled to a decree of eviction for the entire premises, mentioned as tenanted premises, on the ground of the respondents having sub-let a part of the premises, and a decree is accordingly passed. [Para 16][975-F]
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.