Ram
Saran Vs. Pyare Lal & Anr [1996] INSC 73 (16 January 1996)
Ray,
G.N. (J) Ray, G.N. (J) Nanavati G.T. (J) G.N. Ray. J.
CITATION:
JT 1996 (1) 441 1996 SCALE (1)458
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
This
appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.6.1992 passed by a Single
Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in C.R. No.134 of 1992 arising out of
judgment dated 16.5.1990 passed by the Appellate Authority (II), Solan in Rent
Appeal No. 5 NL/14 of 1990/1988 reversing the order of eviction dated 30.9.1988
passed by the Rent Controller, Nalagarh in Case No. 6/2 of 1986.
The
relevant facts concerning this appeal may be stated as hereunder. The shop room
appertaining to khewat-khatanni No. Min. 354/498, Khasra No. 734, in Main Bazar,
Nalagarh town is owned by the appellant landlord. The appellant let out the
said shop room to respondent No.1 on 15.7.1973 for a monthly rental at Rs.140/-
excluding water and electric charges. The said respondent No.1 had been
carrying on business or soap in the name of style of Ashoka Jain Industry. The
landlord filed an application under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban
Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) for eviction of
respondent No.1 and his sub-tenant respondent No.2 Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti, a
society registered under the Societies Registration Act in 1977 on the grounds
of arrears of rent and for sub letting the said premises to respondent No. 2
without consent of the landlord. It was also contended that the landlord
required the suit premises for carrying out business with the held of
land-lord's son.
The
respondent tenant denied the material allegations of the landlord. According to
respondent tenant, the shop room had not been sublet. But the name of the firm Ashoka
Jain industry had been changed to Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti.
Such Samiti
is a registered society, registered on 10.2.1977 comprising the tenant and his
family members. There had not been any change in the business which the tenant
had been carrying in the name of Ashoka Jain Industry. The land lord being
fully aware of the said fact had been accepting rent from the said Mahavir Gram
Udyog Samiti. Accordingly, the land lord was stopped from seeking eviction on
the ground of subletting. The other grounds for eviction were also denied by
the tenant respondent.
The
learned Rent Controller. Nalagarh in Rent Case No.6/2 of 1986 inter alia came
to the finding that the tenant respondent No.1 had parted with the possession
of the said shop room in favour of the said registered society namely Mahavir
Gram Udyog Samiti and the said samiti was a distinct legal entity which could
sue and be sued in its own name.
The
learned Sent Controller had also indicated that or scrutiny of the memorandum
of association of the said society (Ext. 1/A), it was revealed that the samiti
could include new members and any existing member could be removed from the
membership of the society by 2/3rd or the majority of general members.
Accordingly, the respondent No.1 who was then a member of the said registered
society could also be removed from the said society. The learned Rent
Controller further held that the tenant respondent No.1 had no exclusive
control and possession of the suit premises which was being occupied by the
said registered society.
The
tenant respondent No.1 was also not in a position to recover possession of the
said shop room from the said registered society. The said registered society
being a besting legal entity did not represent the Ashoka Jain industries
belonging exclusively to the Respondent No.1 and his son stated to be a partner
of the said firm. The Rent Controller had also found that the tenant respondent
No.1 had also not been paying rent on his behalf or on behalf of Ashoka Jain
Industries but on his own admission, he was paying rent from the funds of
registered society in his capacity as President of the said registered society.
As no lawful sub-tenancy could be created under Section 14 of the Rent Act
without written consent of the landlord,the payment of rent by respondent No.1
as President of the said registered society had not created any legal substancy
in favour of the said registered society. The learned Rent Controller,
therefore on a finding that the tenant respondent No.1 having sublet the said
shop room in favour of a distinct legal entity which had been carrying on its
business activities in the said premises, was liable to be evicted, passed the
order of eviction against the defendants. The other grounds for eviction were,
however, answered in the negative by the learned Rent Controller.
The
tenant respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Appellate
Authority at Solan against the decision of the Rent Controller. The learned
Appellate Authority however reversed the decision of the learned Rent
Controller and dismissed the eviction suit on the finding that the respondent
No.1 tenant, in order to serve villagers by promoting village industries, khadi,
basic education, agriculture, breeding of cows and pulls village sanitation
etc. had constituted the said society namely Gram Udyog Samiti in which he was
member of the governing body of the society and also its President along with
other members of his family as the members of the said society. The case of the
said tenant was that he was carrying on the business of soap in the suit
premises. In the said facts, even if the said Samiti was carrying on its
various activities in the said premises, the original tenant being in effective
control of the affairs of the said samiti, it could not be held that he had let
out the premises in favour of the said society. Hence, decree for eviction on
the ground of sub- letting was not justified.
The
landlord appellant thereafter moved the Himachal Pradesh High Court under
Section 21(5) of the Rent Act. The High Court by impugned judgment has
dismissed the revisional application. The Single Bench of the High Court has
indicated that the Appellate Authority held that in order to serve villagers of
Nalagarh area, the tenant had constituted a registered society with himself and
his family members as the members or the said registered society and the tenant
had retained control over the functioning of the said society in which he was
President. In the aforesaid facts, although the said society had been carrying
on its business activities in the said premises it could not be held that the
tenant had lost control and possession over the premises in question. Hence,
the case of sub-letting by the tenant respondent No.1 it favour of the said
registered society cannot be accented. Being aggrieved by the decision of the
High Court the landlord appellant moved this Court by filing a special leave
petition.
The
learned counsel for the appellant landlord has contended that it is an admitted
position that the disputed shop room was lat out to respondent No.1 tenant in
1972. In the said shop room he was running business of soap in the name and
style of Ashoka Jain Industries. According to respondent no.1 himself the said
business in the name of Ashoka Jain Industries is being run by him with the
held of one of his son as a partner. It is also an admitted position that in
1977 a society, in the name of Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti was formed and the
said samiti was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1977. The said
registered society, according to respondent No.1. was formed for various
beneficial activities of the rural people in the locality namely for promoting khadi
activities, village industries, basic education, agriculture, breeding of cows
and bulls. The said registered samiti is comprised of a number of members and
the respondent No.1 is also a member of the registered society. It is also an
admitted position that the said registered society has been carrying on its
various activities from the shop room. It has also transpired from the
deposition of respondent No.1 that he happens to be the President of the said
registered society and that he is paying rent of the shop room in his capacity
as President of the Samiti and such payment of rent of the shop room is being
made from the fund of the samiti. As a matter of fact, the respondent No.1 has
sought to raise a plea of stopped against the landlord by contending that as
the landlord accepted payment of rent by the said samiti through its President,
the landlord is stopped from seeking eviction on the score of unauthorised
sub-letting of the shop room.
The
learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Memorandum of
Association of the said registered society has been exhibited in the eviction
proceedings and the learned Rent Controller on scrutiny of the said Memorandum
has come to a specific finding that in terms of the Memorandum, any member of
the society may be removed by 2/3rd majority of the members of the society.
Such society can also admit other members in the society. Noticing such facts,
the learned Rent Controller has rightly held that the registered society is not
only a distinct legal entity which can sue and be sued but the said distinct
legal entity is in possession of the shop room and carrying on its activities
there from. The learned counsel has submitted that it is immaterial whether the
tenant respondent No.1 happens to be its President at the moment and the
members of the said society are members of his family. The President and
members of the registered society are not owners of the said firm Ashoka Jain
Industries. The assets of the said registered society, under the law do not
also being to its President or the members of the society. It is quite possible
that the President and the other members may be removed and new members may be
admitted in the said registered society. In such facts, the appellant Authority
and the High Court erred in proceeding on the footing that the respondent No.1
himself being President of the said registered society was controlling the
affairs of the society and hence he had not parted with possession of the shop
room.
The
learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that the Respondent
No.1 has sought to make out a case as pleaded in the written statement that the
name of Ashoka Jain Industries has been changed to Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti
and the said Samiti with more members of the family are carrying on the old
business of Ashoka Jain Industries. Such case of the Respondent No.1 has been
established to on false because Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti is a different legal
entity and on the face of the admission of the tenant respondent No.1. the said
registered society is connected with diverse activities for the alleged welfare
of rural population and the same is not carrying the personal business of the
respondent No.1.
The
learned counsel has submitted that the very fact that a distinct legal entity
has been possessing the shop room and carrying on its activities in the said
shop room makes it abundantly clear that the respondent No.1 has parted with
possession of the said shop room in favour of the said registered society. It
has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that not only such
possession of the shop room has been handed over to the said registered society
but the respondent No.1. on his own admission, is not paying rent for the shop
room but the sub- lessee is paying rent through its President. Hence, a case of
sub-lease which is admittedly without written consent of the landlord, has been
clearly established.
In
this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the
decision of this Court in Roop Chand versus Gopi Chand Thela (1989 (2) SCC
383). In the said case, a club registered under the Companies Act had been in
possession of the substantial portion of the shop room and had been carrying on
its activities. The tenant was also in possession of a part of the said
premises. The Courts below held that the tenant was not in exclusive possession
of the said premises but had parted with possession in respect of a substantial
portion of the same in favour of the club. Hence, even if sub-lease on payment
of rent could not be established, such parting of exclusive possession would
amount sub-lease within the meaning of section 13(1)(e) of Rajasthan Premises
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. This Court has upheld such finding of the
courts below by indicating that clause (e) of Section 13(1) of the said Act
provides that a tenant would render himself liable for eviction if he has
assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any
part of the premises without the permission of the landlord.
The
learned counsel has also referred to another decision of this Court in M/s
Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. versus H.C. Sharma (AIR 1988 SC 145). In that case
question of sub-letting under Delhi Rent Control Act came up for consideration.
In that case, the tenant allowed a club registered under the Companies Act to
carry on its activities in a major portion of the tenanted premises. The tenant
himself was also a member of the said club and according to tenant he has also
carried on his business from a portion of the tenanted premises. The courts
below held that by parting with possession exclusively in favour of the said
club in a major portion of the said premises, a sub- lease was constituted in favour
of the club. Accordingly, decree of eviction was passed. The High Court also
upheld such finding. It has been indicated by this Court that in the context of
exclusive possession of substantial portion of tenanted premises by the club
which had carried on its own activities, the finding of the courts below that a
case of sub-lease was made out, is wholly justified. The learned counsel for
the appellant has submitted that even if it is assumed that the tenant
respondent No.1 had really carried on his soap business in a portion of the
suit premises, the admitted fact remains that a distinct legal entity namely a
registered society had been given exclusive possession of a portion of the
tenanted premises for carrying on its diverse activities and such registered
society admittedly had been claiming an independent right to hold the disputed
premises as tenant by paying rent for the said premises through its President.
Hence, the finding by the Rent Controller that the tenant had sub-let the said
premises is wholly justified and the decision of this Court in Shalimar's case
(supra) is applicable in all fours. The learned counsel has submitted that the
impugned order should be set aside by affirming the order of eviction passed by
the Rent Controller.
The
learned counsel for the respondent has however refuted the contentions of the
learned counsel for the appellant. It has been contended by the learned counsel
that the tenant respondent No.1 has not parted with possession of the suit
premises in favour of Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti.
The
case of the tenant is that the tenant is still carrying on the business of soap
in the said premises but in his anxiety to ensure service to the rural
copulation of the locality he had formed a registered society some time in 1977
with himself and his family members for undertaking various beneficial
activities for the rural population.
There
has not been any assignment of the tenanted premises or any part thereof the
said society. There has not been any payment of rent by the said society to the
respondent No.1 tenant. As a matter of fact the activities of the firm are now
being discharged by the said society in a bigger way with additional members of
the family. The tenant being the President of the said society is controlling
the affairs of the said society. Even if it is assumed that the said society
being a distinct legal identity, its possession can not be held to be the possession
of the tenant respondent No.1 despite his being President of the said society,
in the absence of any evidence as to letting out any portion of the said
premises to the said society on acceptance of rent, it should be held that the
said society is in permissive possession of the said premises. As the tenant
has not parted with possession of the said premises or any portion thereof by
allowing the said society to possess the same in exclusion of the respondent
No.1, no case of sub-tenancy can be made out. Accordingly, the Appellate
Authority has rightly held that the case of sub-tenancy can not be accepted.
Such finding of the Appellate Authority being wholly justified in the facts of
the case, has been upheld by the High Court.
The
learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the landlord has not
discharged the onus to prove sub- tenancy. The landlord has adjoining shops and
one of such shops is in his possession. Such fact has been admitted by the land
lord in his deposition. The registered samiti was formed in 1977 and the said Samiti
had been carrying on its activities openly in the said shop room. The landlord
has also been accepting rent from the said Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti through
respondent No.1 who is the President of the said samiti. In the aforesaid
circumstance, the landlord with full knowledge has allowed the said samiti to
remain in possession of the suit premises and having acknowledged the
possession in the said samiti, has allowed the said samiti to pay rent of the
said premises in its name through respondent No.1, A decision of this Court in
A.S. Sulochana versus C. Dharmalingam (1987 (1) RCC 213) has been referred to
by the learned counsel. This Court has indicated in the said case that if a
sub-tenant has remained in possession openly for 18 years and if the landlord
has not taken any objection for such long possession as sub-tenant, it would
give rise to inference that the said tenancy was not unlawful and the tenant
should not be evicted on the ground of sub-letting. The learned counsel has
been occupying the tenanted premises and has been carrying on its diverse
activities. The landlord with knowledge of such activities of the samiti has
not raised any objection for a number of years and only in 1986 the eviction
suit was instituted by him. In the aforesaid facts, such long possession openly
by the said samiti will raise a reasonable inference that the sub-tenancy is
not unlawful.
The
learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that the respondent No.1
was inducted as a tenant and the said tenant had been carrying on business in
the name and style of Ashoka Jain Industries with a son a partner. The said
partnership firm had only changed its nomenclature by forming a registered
society in the name of Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti. Since the activities of the
firm were being carried in a new form, it should be held that for all practical
purposes, the old firm of the tenant was there and there has not been any
sub-letting simply because form of the legal entity and the name were changed.
In support of such contention, reliance has been placed on a decision of this
Court in Madras Bangalore Transport Company versus Inder Sen (1986 (3) SCC 62).
In the said case, a partnership firm was carrying on business of transport as a
tenant in the disputed premises. In order to circumvent a ban on the partners
to operate transport business in a particular area, a private limited company
was formed with the partners as Directors of the said company. The firm was
appointed as Agent of the Company and the company was appointed as agent of the
firm. The firm allowed the said company to operate from the tenanted premises
along with it. Both the company and the firm had their sign boards at the
premises and both of them were registered under the Shop and Establishment Act
as having their offices in the disputed premises. In the aforesaid peculiar facts.,
this court has held that there was no sub-letting, assignment or parting with
possession of the premises in question by the firm to the Limited Company.
This
Court has held that in the facts of that case, the firm continued to be in
possession of the premises even after the Private Limited Company came into
existence. The firm never effaced themselves. The firm allowed the said Private
Limited Company to function from the same premises but the Private Limited
Company though a separate legal entity was fact a creation of the partners of
the firm and was the very image of the firm. The Limited Company and the
partnership firm were two only in name but one for practical purposes, there
was substantial identity between the Limited Company and the partnership firm.
As such, even though the firm and the Company were distinct legal entities,
there was no sub- letting or assignment etc. In our view, the decision in
Madras Bangalore Transport Company's case has no application in the facts of
this case. The Ashoka Jain Industries and Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti are not
only two separate legal entities, their composition are different and nature of
activities are also not the same. The Ashoka Jain Industries is concerned with
soap business but admittedly the samiti is concerned with various diverse
activities including breeding of cows and bulls. The firm is also not the agent
of the society and vice versa. The society can not be held to be a creation of
the said firm or image of the said firm.
Moreover
in the written statement, it has been specifically averred that the society and
not the firm was paying rent through its President for the suit premises.
The
learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to decisions in Vishwanath
versus Chaman Lal (AIR 1975 Delhi 117), since referred to with approval in the
decision of this Court in Madras Bangalore Transport Company's case (supra). In
Vishwanath's case, Vishwanath took tenancy and was carrying on business in the
name of M/s Interads International Advertising Agency Pvt. Ltd. The tenant
converted his firm as Interads Advertising Pvt Ltd and landlord issued rent
receipts in the name of the Interads Advertising Pvt. Ltd. In such
circumstances High Court negatived the finding of Rent Controller that the
tenant had sublet the premises. The learned counsel has also relied on the
decision in M/s Associated Tube Well Ltd.'s case (1984 (2) Rent Control Report
449) by contending that the said decision was approved in Madras Bangalore
Transport Company's case (supra). In M/s Associated Tube Well Ltd. Company's
case, the said M/s Associated Tube Wells Ltd took out tenancy with a right to
sublet. The sub-letting was in favour of M/s Clearing House and Agencies Pvt.
Ltd. The original tenant surrendered its tenancy and as such direct
relationship of landlord and tenant was created after such surrendering of
tenancy. In such circumstances, the case of sub-letting as alleged by the
landlord was disallowed. In our view, both the said decisions have no
application in the facts of this case. In Vishwanath's case only the name of
the business was changed and in the second case, there was a provision for
sub-letting and original tenant having surrendered, by payment and acceptance
of rent between the landlord and sub-tenant a new tenancy directly in favour of
the sub-tenant was created.
The
learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in order to establish
sub-tenancy, exclusive possession of the alleged sub-tenant with tenant
retaining no control of the premises should be established. The other
ingredient of sub-tenancy is that right to occupy the premises must be in lieu
of payment of some compensation or rent. In support of the said contentions,
reliance was made to the decision of this Court in Dipak Banerjee versus Lilabati
Chakraborty (1987 (1) SCC 161. The learned counsel has submitted that the
respondent No.1 has retained possession of the premises wherein he carries on
the business of soap and he has not carted with possession on acceptance of any
consideration from the said samiti. Hence, no case of sub-tenancy can be
lawfully held against the respondent. He has submitted that in the aforesaid
facts, the appeal should be dismissed with cost.
After
giving careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties it appears to us that
the respondent No.1 took out the tenancy of the shop room in his personal
capacity in July 1973 and he had been carrying on business of soap in the name
and style of Ashoka Jain Industries. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that
one of his sons also became partner of the said firm Ashoka Jain Industries.
Latter on, in the year 1977, a society in the name Mahavir Gram Udyog Samiti
was formed and registered under the Societies Registration Act. Such society,
according to case of respondent No.1. comprises of a number of members drawn
from the family of the respondent No.1 and including himself. Admittedly, such
society has been formed not for carrying on the said family business of the
Respondent No.1 but for alleged diverse activities alleged to be beneficial for
the rural population in the locality namely khadi activities, agriculture,
breeding of cows and pulls etc. etc.
It is
an admitted position that the said registered society has been carrying on its
diverse activities in the said shop room. At the relevant time, respondent No.
1 was the President of the said registered society and therefore had occasion
to control and regulate the activities of the said society. It appears that the
aforesaid fact of regulating the activities of the said society by the
respondent No.1 in his capacity as the President of the said society, has
weighed with the learned Appellate Authority in coming to the finding that the
said respondent No.1 has retained his possession of the said shop room. But, in
our view, the Appellate Authority has failed to notice that the registered
society is a distinct legal entity. Its assets and liabilities belong to the
said society which can sue and be sued in its name. The learned Rent Controller
has rightly indicated that from the memorandum of association of the said
registered society, which has been exhibited in the eviction case, it clearly
transpires that any member may be removed and new members may be taken in the
society by the decision of 2/3rd majority of members. It is, therefore, not
unlikely that in course of time, the respondent No.1 or their family members
may not be members of the said registered society and such society may be run
by a completely different group of persons. It is therefore immaterial whether
at the time of trial of the eviction proceedings, the respondent No.1 had been
controlling the affairs of the said registered society in his capacity as its
President.
It may
be indicated here that it is not the case of the respondent No.1 that the said
registered society was allowed to possess the tenanted premises for carrying on
its diverse activities only as a licence of the respondent No.1 or of the said
firm Ashoka Jain Industries. On the contrary, the specific case made out by the
respondent No.1 in his written statement is that the firm Ashoka Jain
Industries has been changed to the registered society in the name of Mahavir
Gram Udyog Samiti and the said society is occupying the tenanted premises and
carrying on its various activities from the said premises by asserting its
independent right as a tenant. As a matter of fact, the respondent No.1 has
averred in the written statement that the said registered society has been
paying rent for the tenanted premises not on behalf of the respondent No.1 or
the said Ashoka Jain Industries but on its own behalf through its President,
namely, the respondent No.1. On account of such assertion of independent status
of tenancy by the said registered society, a case was sought to be made out by
the respondent No.1 that the landlord having accepted rent tendered in the name
of the said registered society is stopped from seeking eviction of the
respondent No.1 and the said society on the ground of sub-letting.
It
appears to us that the respondent No. 1 in an attempt to show that he had not
completely parted with possession of the said shop room in favour of the
registered society also stated that he had been carrying on his soap business
in the said premises, Such case, in our view, should not be accepted. The
Respondent No.1 has clearly stated in the written statement that the firm Ashoka
Jain Industries was changed to a registered specify and the said registered
society is carrying on its activities in the shop room by asserting its status
as a tenant. The activities of the registered society can not be held to be
personal activities of the respondent No.1 or the alleged partnership business
of the firm Ashoka Jain Industries. Even if it is assumed on the face value of
the assertion of respondent No.1 that he is also carrying on his soap business
in the disputed premises, in the context of the written statement of the
respondent No.1. it only follows that the said registered society is possessing
the tenanted premises by asserting its independent status as tenant by
tendering rent in its own name through its President and the said respondent
No.1 is in permissive possession under the said society in a portion of the
tenanted premises for carrying on his personal business of soap. In any event,
it is quite evident from the case made out by the respondent No.1 in the
written statement that he has surrendered his right of tenancy in favour of the
registered society and has delivered exclusive possession of the tenanted
premises in favour of the said registered society which is occupying the same
by asserting a right of tenancy. Hence, a case of lease without the written
consent of landlord as required under Section 14 of the Rent Act for creating a
valid assignment of sub-tenancy has been clearly established. Unfortunately,
such position in law which is apparent from the case made out by the respondent
No.1 has been lost sight of both by the learned Appellate Authority and by the
High Court.
So far
as payment of rent by respondent No.1 dua President of the said registered
society and acceptance of such rent tendered on behalf of the registered
society by the landlord with knowledge of the possession of the said shop room
by the said society are concerned, it may be stated that the tenancy of
respondent No.1 had not been surrendered and such surrender of tenancy has not
been accepted by the landlord. If upon accepting the surrender of tenancy of
the said tenant, occupation of a new tenant is acknowledged by the landlord by
accepting payment of rent from the new tenant, then by such payment and
acceptance of rent between the tenant and landlord, a new tenancy may be
created. By a unilateral action of the tenant of surrendering his right of
tenancy in favour of a third party by delivering possession of the tenanted
premises to the said third party, no new tenancy is created which may legally
bind the landlord. By mere acceptance of rent for the tenanted premises
tendered by the tenant in the name of the registered society, neither a new
tenancy or a valid sub-tenancy in favour of the said registered society has
been created. In this connection, reference may be made to a decision of this
Court in Hiralal Kapur versus Prabhu Choudhury (1988 (2) SCC 172). In the said
case rent was paid by two cheques, one drawn by the tenant himself for a part
of the rent, the other was drawn by the sub-tenant for the remaining part of the
rent. It has been held by this Court that the landlord was entitled to rent
(Rs.600/-p.m.) and so long he got this amount, it was immaterial for him
whether the amount was paid in lumpsum or by one cheque or more than one cheque
and who the makers of the cheque were. In that case, a number of cheques given
to the landlord were returned dishonored and the landlord wrote to the tenant
in which he specifically referred that five cheques were given by the
sub-lessee. Even then, it has been held by this Court that such fact will not
improve tenant's position at all for it only evidences the fact that the
landlord was receiving the cheque issued in the name of the sub-lessee in
discharge of the tenant's obligation to pay rent for the tenanted premises.
The
Rent Act is a special statute governing and regulating tenancy and sub-tenancy.
Such provisions in the special statute supersede the general law of tenancy if
the provisions of the special statute are incompatible with the general law of
tenancy. Under Section 14 of the Rent Act, mere knowledge of the landlord about
occupation of the tenanted premises by the said registered society and
acceptance of rent for the tenanted premises tendered by the tenant in the name
of the registered society, will not create a sub-tenancy unless induction of a
sub-tenant is made with the written consent of the landlord. It is nobody's
case that the landlord has given any written consent for induction of
sub-tenant. There is no estoppel against statute. Hence, even if the landlord has
accepted payment of rent for the disputed premises from the said society, such
acceptance of rent will not constitute legal and valid sub-tenancy in favour of
the registered society.
Consequently,
landlord will not be stopped from claiming eviction of unauthorised sub-tenant
along with the tenant for indulging in inducting sub-tenant without lawful
authority.
We,
therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court
and affirm the order of eviction passed against the respondent by the learned
Rent Controller. Nalagarh in case No. 6/2 of 1986. As the eviction case is
pending for a long time, it is directed that the execution proceedings should
be expedited. There will be, however, no order as to cost in this appeal.
Back
Pages: 1 2