Case Note & Summary
The petitioners (defendants) challenged the judgment and decree dated 20th December 1997 passed by the learned IV Extra Joint District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No.882 of 1995, which allowed the appeal of the respondent (plaintiff) and decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The plaintiff had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.1186 of 1990 alleging that defendant No.1 was in arrears of rent, had sublet the premises to defendants No.2 and 3, made permanent construction, caused nuisance, and that the plaintiff required the premises reasonably and bona fide. The trial court dismissed the suit on 11th August 1995. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff had proved unlawful subletting. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, examined whether the appellate court's findings were perverse or based on no evidence. The petitioners argued that the District Judge did not appreciate the ingredients of subletting, relying on Nirmal Kanta v. Ashok Kumar (2008) 7 SCC 722, which held that subletting requires parting of legal possession, exclusive possession, and receipt of rent. The High Court found that the District Judge had correctly appreciated the evidence, noting that defendants No.2 and 3 were not family members of defendant No.1 and were in exclusive possession, and that defendant No.1 failed to rebut the presumption of subletting. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Unlawful Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Landlord's suit for eviction on ground of subletting - Trial court dismissed suit, appellate court decreed it - High Court in writ petition upheld appellate decree - Held that landlord proved that tenant had sublet premises to third parties who were not family members, and tenant failed to rebut presumption of subletting (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned District Judge correctly decreed the suit on the ground of unlawful subletting under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act, and whether the findings of subletting were supported by evidence.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the judgment and decree of the District Judge dated 20th December 1997, which decreed the suit for eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Law Points
- Subletting requires parting of legal possession
- exclusive possession to subtenant
- and receipt of rent or consideration
- mere presence of family members or licensees does not constitute subletting
- burden of proof on landlord to establish subletting
- appellate court can re-appreciate evidence.
