Case Note & Summary
The present revision application arises out of a landlord's suit for eviction filed under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit property is a shop premises consisting of two pieces, one measuring 10 ft x 10 ft and the other 3 ft x 4 ft, situated at Bhusawal. The landlord, Madankumar Kanji Joshi, alleged that the original tenant, Kailas Ramlal Shriwas (since deceased and represented by respondents 3, 4 and 7), had sublet the premises to respondent No.7, Ravindra Vasant Choudhari, without his consent. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the dismissal. The landlord then filed this civil revision before the High Court. The core legal issue was whether the landlord had proved that the tenant had sublet the premises or parted with possession. The landlord argued that respondent No.7 was carrying on business in the suit shop and that the tenant had admitted in cross-examination that he was not doing business there. The tenant and respondent No.7 contended that respondent No.7 was only a servant or employee of the tenant and that the tenant remained in possession. The High Court, after examining the evidence, held that the landlord failed to prove subletting. The court noted that mere presence of a third party in the premises or that the third party is carrying on business is not sufficient to establish subletting; the landlord must prove that the tenant has lost control over the premises and that the third party is in exclusive possession. The court also observed that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were not shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, and the eviction suit was rejected.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on ground of subletting - Section 15 Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Burden of proof - Landlord must prove that tenant has sublet or parted with possession of the tenanted premises - Mere presence of third parties or that they are carrying on business in the premises is not sufficient to prove subletting - Landlord must show that the tenant has lost control over the premises and that the third party is in exclusive possession - Held that the landlord failed to discharge this burden (Paras 7-9). B) Rent Control - Eviction - Appreciation of evidence - Trial court and first appellate court concurrently found that the landlord failed to prove subletting - High Court in revision cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that concurrent findings of fact are not shown to be perverse (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the landlord proved that the tenant had sublet the suit premises or parted with possession thereof, entitling him to a decree of eviction under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Final Decision
Revision dismissed. The concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court that the landlord failed to prove subletting are upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on landlord to establish subletting or parting with possession
- Mere presence of third parties in tenanted premises not sufficient to prove subletting
- Landlord must prove that tenant has lost control over the premises
- Rent control legislation is protective of tenants
