Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Mohammad Ali, filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rent against the first defendant, Surendra Darappa Shetty, and two sub-tenants. The suit property originally belonged to M.A. Contractor, who leased it to K.M. Shetty and C.K. Shetty. The first defendant worked as a manager and later continued the business. The original owner sold the property to the plaintiff and his mother in 1987. The plaintiff went to Saudi Arabia and appointed a power of attorney. The first defendant sub-leased the premises to defendants 2 and 3 without the plaintiff's consent. The trial court decreed possession in favor of the plaintiff and ordered a separate enquiry for mesne profits. The first appellate court confirmed this. The first defendant appealed in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the sub-lease without consent was a valid ground for eviction and that the tenant was estopped from denying the landlord's title. The court also upheld the direction for a separate enquiry for mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 CPC.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Lease - Sub-lease without consent - Section 108(h) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The plaintiff landlord sought possession and arrears of rent alleging that the first defendant tenant sub-leased the suit premises to defendants 2 and 3 without consent. The trial court and first appellate court decreed possession in favor of plaintiff. Held that sub-lease without landlord's consent is a valid ground for eviction and the tenant is estopped from denying landlord's title. (Paras 2-6) B) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Order XX Rule 12 CPC - The trial court directed separate enquiry for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The High Court upheld this direction, noting that mesne profits require determination of quantum after evidence. Held that separate enquiry is proper under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first defendant's sub-lease of the suit premises without the plaintiff's consent entitles the plaintiff to recovery of possession and mesne profits.
Final Decision
The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirming the Trial Court's decree for possession and separate enquiry for mesne profits is upheld.
Law Points
- Sub-lease without landlord's consent is a ground for eviction
- Tenant estopped from denying landlord's title
- Mesne profits require separate enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC
