Case Note & Summary
This appeal to the Supreme Court arose out of a suit for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, filed by the landlord deity and its manager against the tenant Gappulal. The dispute concerned six shops situated in a temple at Chaura Raasta, Jaipur. The landlord alleged that the tenant had sub-let all six shops without permission, thereby attracting the ground of eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. The trial court and the first appellate court concurrently found that the shops had been sub-let but with the permission of the landlord, and therefore dismissed the claim for eviction while granting a decree for arrears of rent. In second appeal, the High Court reversed these findings, holding that the tenant had sub-let two of the shops without permission towards the end of 1947, and that the tenancy was an integrated one, resulting in a decree for eviction from all six shops. The tenant then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issues before the Supreme Court were: first, whether there was one integrated tenancy of all six shops created by a later consolidation and increase of rent; second, whether the two shops were sub-let without the landlord's permission; and third, whether sub-letting effected before the commencement of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 could be a ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(e). On the first issue, the Court noted the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the increase of rent in 1953 did not amount to a surrender of the existing leases and the creation of a new tenancy. Citing the principle that a mere increase or reduction of rent does not necessarily import a new demise unless there is special reason to infer a new tenancy, the Court held that this finding of fact was binding on the High Court in second appeal and reversed the High Court's conclusion of an integrated tenancy. On the second issue, the Court found that there was no pleading or specific issue regarding the landlord's permission for sub-letting. The lower courts' finding of permission was therefore erroneous, as was the High Court's finding that two shops were sub-let without permission, because the date of sub-letting was not pleaded and could not be definitively fixed. It was established, however, that the tenant had falsely denied sub-letting the two shops altogether. Consequently, the Court accepted that the two shops had been sub-let, but without a proper determination of permission due to lack of pleadings. On the third issue, the Court interpreted the phrase 'has sub-let' in Section 13(1)(e) as being in the present perfect tense, which contemplates a completed event connected with the present time and thus covers sub-letting that occurred before the Act came into force and continues thereafter. Support was drawn from Sections 26 and 27(1) of the Act, which indicate that eviction grounds may arise before the Act. The Court accordingly held that sub-letting before the Act was a valid ground for eviction. In the result, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal. It upheld the eviction decree in respect of the two shops that had been sub-let, as the tenant had no permission. The eviction decree for the remaining four shops was set aside because they were initially sub-let with permission. The final order thus modified the High Court's decree, granting eviction only from the two shops.
Headnote
A) Landlord and Tenant - Increase or Reduction of Rent - Mere increase of rent does not import surrender of existing lease and grant of new tenancy - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 - The trial court and first appellate court found that there was only an increase of rent, not a new contract of tenancy. The High Court erred in holding that there was one integrated tenancy based on consolidation of rent. Held that a mere agreement for variation of rent, without special reason to infer a new tenancy, does not result in a new demise. (Pages 3-4) B) Landlord and Tenant - Sub-letting - Permission of landlord must be specifically pleaded and proved - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, Section 13(1)(e) - The courts below held sub-letting was with permission, but there was no pleading or issue on that point. The High Court also found two shops sub-let without permission but without proper pleadings. Held that permission cannot be inferred from mere acceptance of rent without proof of landlord's clear knowledge of sub-lease. In the absence of necessary pleadings, the finding on permission/absence of permission is erroneous. (Page 4) C) Rent Control and Eviction - Sub-letting - Ground of eviction under Section 13(1)(e) - Applicability to sub-letting before the Act - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950, Section 13(1)(e), Sections 26, 27(1) - The tenant sub-let the shops before the Act came into force. Held that the words 'has sub-let' in s.13(1)(e) are in the present perfect tense, covering a completed event connected to the present, thus covering sub-letting that occurred before the Act and continues. Sections 26 and 27(1) also indicate that eviction grounds may arise before the Act. Therefore, sub-letting even prior to the Act can be a ground for eviction if continuing. (Pages 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether there was an integrated tenancy of all six shops; Whether two shops were sub-let without the landlord's permission; Whether sub-letting before the commencement of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 constitutes a ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(e)
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. The decree of the High Court for eviction from all six shops is set aside. The tenant is liable to be evicted from the two shops sub-let without permission. The eviction decree for the four shops is set aside.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Mere increase or reduction of rent does not import a new tenancy
- In absence of pleading and issue court cannot find sub-letting with permission
- Permission for sub-letting cannot be inferred from mere acceptance of rent without proof of landlord's clear knowledge
- Section 13(1)(e) using 'has sub-let' includes sub-letting before Act and continuing
- Section 13(1)(e) ground of eviction applies to sub-letting both before and after Act
- Sections 26 and 27(1) envisage eviction grounds arising before Act
