1990 (10) TMI 362 - SC - Indian Laws

Eviction Upheld for Unlawful Sub-Letting & Landlord's Genuine Need

BHOOLCHAND Versus KAY PEE CEE INVESTMENTS

The High Court upheld the eviction decree against the tenant and sub-tenant based on unlawful sub-letting and the landlord's bona fide requirement for ... Whether the High Court in the present case while reversing the Trial Court's finding on the question of landlord's reasonable and bone fide requirement of the suit premises exceeded its jurisdiction? Whether the subletting made by M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram to M/s. Super Dry Cleaners of one shop which is a part of the suit premises w.e.f. 1.4, 1948 was unlawful being contrary to any provision of law then in force? Held that:- It is clear that the written consent of the landlord for sub-letting was necessary under the relevant statute applicable on 1.4. 1948 when the sub-letting was made in the present case. The landlord's consent in the letter dated 4.10.1943 was not available on 1.4.1948 after expiry of the contractual tenancy. The rest is only a logical corollary to this conclusion leading to the inevitable result that induction of the sub-tenant M/s. Super Dry Cleaners w.e.f. 1.4.1948 by the tenant M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram was unlawful being made contrary to the provision of law then in force which constitutes the ground for eviction contained in clause (f) of Sub-section 1 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. There is, thus, no ground to differ with the conclusion reached by the High Court that the ground of sub-letting has been made out, even though our reasons are different. the ground of sub-letting also was rightly held proved by the High Court in addition to the ground of landlord's reasonable and bona fide requirement, the question of applicability of Sub-section 4 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 does not arise and, therefore, it is not necessary to examine the question of comparative hardship. In that view of the matter, the appeals must fail. Appeal dismissed. Grant to the appellants time till 31.3.1991 for vacating the suit premises Issues Involved:1. Sub-letting2. Reasonable and bona fide requirement of the landlordIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Sub-letting:The appeals by the tenant and sub-tenant challenge the eviction decree on the grounds of sub-letting and the landlord's bona fide requirement under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. The High Court reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the landlord's eviction application and passed the decree for eviction. The key point for decision is whether the sub-letting by M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram to M/s. Super Dry Cleaners w.e.f. 1.4.1948 was unlawful. The original lease agreement dated 4.10.1943 allowed sub-letting for two years. The sub-letting in question occurred after this period, raising the issue of whether the landlord's written consent was still valid.The High Court examined the legality of the sub-letting and found it unlawful as it occurred after the expiry of the contractual tenancy and without fresh written consent from the landlord. The Bangalore House Rent and Accommodation Control Act, 1946, effective at the time of sub-letting, required written consent for sub-letting. The court concluded that the sub-letting was unlawful, constituting a valid ground for eviction under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.2. Reasonable and Bona Fide Requirement of the Landlord:The landlord claimed the premises for its own business, arguing that it was purchased for opening a showroom. The Trial Court dismissed this claim, but the High Court reversed the decision, finding the landlord's need bona fide. The High Court's power under Section 50 of the Act allows it to correct errors of fact and law. The High Court found that the Trial Court erred in requiring documentary evidence and not properly assessing the landlord's need.The High Court noted that the landlord's firm, comprising three women from a business family, had no other premises for its business. The purchase of the property in a prestigious commercial area for Rs. 1,40,000 indicated a genuine need for the premises. The High Court's finding of bona fide requirement was based on the oral evidence and undisputed facts, justifying the eviction decree.Conclusion:The High Court's decision to evict the tenant and sub-tenant was upheld on both grounds: unlawful sub-letting and the landlord's bona fide requirement. The appeals were dismissed, granting the appellants time until 31.3.1991 to vacate the premises.