Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, landlords of a premises in Pune, filed a writ petition challenging the appellate judgment that reversed the trial court's eviction order against the tenant. The tenant was inducted in 1969 under a tenancy agreement at a monthly rent of Rs.60 plus water charges. The landlords alleged that the tenant had sublet the premises to Respondent No.2 without consent and had failed to pay rent from 1978 onwards, constituting wilful default. The trial court decreed eviction, but the appellate court allowed the tenant's appeal, setting aside the decree. The landlords then approached the High Court. The legal issues were whether the tenant had sublet the premises and whether the non-payment of rent was wilful. The landlords argued that the tenant had parted with possession and that the subtenant was running a business independently. The tenant contended that the subtenant was a relative and that the rent was not paid due to disputes. The court analyzed the evidence, noting that the tenant failed to prove that the subtenant was a family member or that the occupation was not exclusive. The court also found that the tenant's failure to pay rent for over six months was wilful. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside the appellate order, and restored the trial court's eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Subletting - Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant had sublet the premises without consent. The court held that the tenant's failure to prove that the alleged subtenant was a family member or that the occupation was not exclusive, coupled with evidence of the subtenant's independent business, established subletting. (Paras 1-10) B) Rent Control - Wilful Default - Section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - The landlord claimed arrears of rent for over six months. The court found that the tenant's consistent failure to pay rent despite demands constituted wilful default, justifying eviction. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant had sublet the premises without the landlord's consent and whether the tenant had committed wilful default in payment of rent, entitling the landlord to eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's decree of eviction.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent constitutes ground for eviction
- Non-payment of rent is a ground for eviction
- Burden of proof on tenant to show no subletting
- Tenant's failure to pay rent for six months or more is wilful default
