Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by Santosh Anant Sabale, the legal heir of the original tenant Anant Krishna Sabale, challenging the judgment and decree dated 26 March 2022 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai. The Appellate Court allowed Appeal No.133 of 2016 filed by the landlords (Mathuradas Morarji and others) and decreed R.A.E. & R. Suit No.808/1381 of 2001 on the ground of unlawful subletting, directing the defendants to hand over possession of the suit premises and permanently restraining them from parting with possession. The suit premises is a shop on the ground floor of Building No.195-201, V.P. Road, Mumbai. The original tenant Anant Krishna Sabale carried on a hair cutting saloon business. After his death, his son Santosh Sabale (Defendant No.1) claimed tenancy rights. The landlords alleged that Defendant No.1 sublet the premises to Kalpesh Thakkar (Defendant No.3), who started a business under the name 'Woods Fashion' on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. The landlords also claimed arrears of rent from April 2000 to May 2001. The suit was initially decreed ex-parte, but later set aside by the High Court in Writ Petition No.78 of 2011. After trial, the Small Causes Court dismissed the suit on 25 November 2015, holding that the landlords failed to prove unlawful subletting and default. The landlords appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision, decreeing the suit on the ground of unlawful subletting. The revision applicant (Defendant No.1) argued that the Appellate Court erred in reversing the trial court's decision, as the landlords failed to prove exclusive possession by Defendant No.3. He relied on the Court Commissioner's report showing his presence in the premises and documents such as Shop Act license renewals. The landlords contended that Defendant No.1 did not carry on any business, failed to produce invoices or income tax returns, and that the income tax return for 2005-2006 showed 'Nil' income from business and a receipt of Rs.72,000/- as compensation, suggesting subletting. The High Court, in revision, examined whether the Appellate Court's finding on unlawful subletting was perverse. The court noted that the Appellate Court had considered the evidence, including the failure of Defendant No.1 to prove business activity and the exclusive possession by Defendant No.3. The High Court held that the Appellate Court's decision was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The revision application was dismissed, confirming the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Unlawful Subletting - Burden of Proof - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 15 - The landlord must prove that the tenant has parted with possession of the suit premises in favour of a third party for monetary consideration. The court may draw an inference of subletting from circumstances such as the tenant's failure to prove business activity, absence of documents, and exclusive possession by the sublessee. (Paras 5-7) B) Rent Control - Subletting - Inference - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, Section 15 - Where the tenant fails to produce invoices, income tax returns, or other business documents, and the sublessee is found in exclusive possession, an inference of unlawful subletting can be drawn. (Paras 6-7) C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Scope - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 115 - The High Court in revision does not re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court correctly decreed the suit on the ground of unlawful subletting based on evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, confirming the decree of eviction passed by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court on the ground of unlawful subletting.
Law Points
- Unlawful subletting
- burden of proof
- exclusive possession
- inference of subletting
- Rent Act
