Finality in second appeal and subletting principles under rent law sustained eviction where control passed to another person.

A second appeal cannot reopen a finding on landlord's bona fide requirement once the court has expressly refused to formulate a substantial question of law on that issue; subsequent-event pleadings cannot displace that finality. The note also explains that subletting under the M. P. Accommodation Control Act may be inferred where the tenant has withdrawn from the premises, ceased effective control of the business, and allowed another person, including a close relative, to run the establishment independently. On the stated facts, the landlord-requirement issue remained concluded and the subletting finding was sustained, supporting the eviction decree.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether subsequent events could be taken into account in second appeal after an earlier order had finally declined to reopen the finding on the landlord's requirement under Section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the tenant had sublet or otherwise transferred control of the suit premises so as to attract Section 12(1)(b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether subsequent events could be taken into account in second appeal after an earlier order had finally declined to reopen the finding on the landlord's requirement under Section 12(1)(f) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Analysis: The earlier appellate order had expressly refused to formulate any substantial question of law on the finding under Section 12(1)(f), thereby closing that issue at the stage of admission. Once the Court had positively declined to reopen that question, the matter had attained finality for the purposes of the appeal. The later plea based on alleged subsequent events could not be used to disturb that concluded position. The binding force arose from the finality of the judicial order and the principle that litigation cannot be reopened endlessly on the same concluded issue.

Conclusion: The subsequent-event plea was not entertainable, and the finding under Section 12(1)(f) remained undisturbed.

Issue (ii): Whether the tenant had sublet or otherwise transferred control of the suit premises so as to attract Section 12(1)(b) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the tenant had shifted away, ceased effective control over the business carried on in the premises, and allowed his brother to run the establishment independently. Mere relationship between tenant and occupant did not prevent the arrangement from amounting to subletting where control and business management had passed to the other person. On the facts found by the courts below, the tenant had withdrawn himself from the premises and had inducted his brother in a manner that satisfied the legal mischief of subletting.

Conclusion: The finding of subletting under Section 12(1)(b) was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The eviction decree was sustained because the challenge to the finalised finding on landlord's requirement could not be reopened and the finding of subletting was also affirmed, leaving no merit in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A question expressly declined to be reopened at an earlier stage of a second appeal attains finality and cannot later be revived through subsequent-event pleadings, while transfer of effective control of non-residential premises to another person, even a close relative, can amount to subletting if the tenant has withdrawn from the business and possession in substance.

---