Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 – ss.13(1)(e) and 15 – Eviction under – Plaintiff Nos.1 & 2, the predecessors-in-title of the appellants filed suit for recovery of possession of the leased premises from the tenant – It was their case that the tenant parted with the running of the hotel/premises and possession of the same was given to a third person – Lease deed recorded that business of hotel was the independent business of the tenant and he would not assign the business or transfer the same to any third person – Trial Court decreed suit on the ground of creation of sub-tenancy – Judgment of the trial Court was confirmed in Appellate Court – High Court held that the legal possession remained with the tenant and mere creation of a partnership agreement by the tenant for the purpose of jointly carrying on business in the leased premises would not amount to sub-letting – Decree of eviction/possession was set aside – On appeal, held: Tenant did not stop short at executing the partnership agreement but went on to execute the assignment agreement, whereby he assigned his hotel business in the leased premises to a third person and received earnest money – The very act of execution of this document was sufficient in itself to complete the breach of the lease condition and the statutory mandate u/ss. 13(1)(e) and 15(1) – Therefore, judgment of High Court set aside – Judgment of trial Court and Appellate Court affirmed.
Allowing the appeals and I.As, the Court
HELD 1. The Lease Deed is stated to have recorded unequivocally in page 4 that the business of Hotel is the independent business of the tenant and that he would not assign the business and would not allow third persons to conduct the said business in any way nor would he transfer the said business in any way in favour of a third person. [Para 21][1145-C]
2. Given the clear proscription in the lease deed, duly endorsed by the explicit language of Sections 13(1)(e) and 15(1) of the Act of 1947, the very execution of the assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49), whereby the tenant admittedly assigned his business in the leasehold premises in favour of a third person for ` 2,00,000/- and accepted a sum of ` 50,000/- as earnest money, was sufficient in itself to establish transgression of the lease condition and the statutory mandate. This court has earlier laid down the principle that the mere execution of a genuine partnership deed by a tenant, whereby he/she converted a sole proprietary concern into a partnership business, while continuing to actively participate in the business and retaining control over the tenanted premises wherein the business is being run, would not amount to sub-letting. However, that principle has no role to play in the case on hand. Tenant did not stop short at executing the partnership agreement dated 01.01.1985 (Exh.48) but went on to execute the assignment agreement dated 15.01.1985 (Exh.49), whereby he assigned his hotel business in the leased premises to a third person and received earnest money also. The very act of execution of this document was sufficient in itself to complete the breach of the lease condition and the statutory mandate and did not require anything further. [Para 22][1145-E-H]
Parvinder Singh v. Renu Gautam and Others (2004) 4 SCC 794 : [2004] 1 Suppl. SCR 610; Mahendra Saree Emporium (II) v. G. V. Srinivasa Murthy (2005) 1 SCC
481 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 931 – 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.