Supreme Court restores judgments for eviction due to subletting and accommodation needs.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments in favor of the appellant for eviction based on unauthorized subletting and bona fide requirement of additional accommodation. The respondent was granted time until 30th June 1988 to vacate the premises, with conditions.

---

---

Issues:
Eviction based on subletting without consent and bona fide requirement of additional accommodation.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought eviction of the respondent on grounds of unauthorized subletting and bona fide requirement of additional accommodation. The Trial Court and Appellate Court both found in favor of the appellant based on these grounds. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to inspect the premises, who reported inadequate accommodation for the appellant's family, supporting the appellant's claim. The Trial Court also found evidence of subletting by the respondent to his brother, leading to a decree for eviction.

2. The High Court, in the Second Appeal, reversed the lower courts' findings, terming them as perverse. However, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court's reasoning, highlighting that the Trial Court had considered the full extent of accommodation available before decreeing eviction. The Supreme Court also noted the High Court's oversight of the small size of rooms in the appellant's possession, making the accommodation insufficient for the family members, including unmarried sons and a daughter.

3. Regarding subletting, the Supreme Court found that the respondent had indeed sublet the premises to his brother without consent, as he had permanently shifted his residence elsewhere. The High Court's distinction between subletting and licensing based on the relationship between the respondent and his brother was deemed unjustified. The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' findings on subletting.

4. The respondent argued that the appellant had another house, rendering him ineligible for eviction under Section 13(ff). However, the Supreme Court clarified that the appellant's possession of another house, not lying vacant and situated more than three miles away, did not negate the bona fide requirement of additional accommodation. The Court rejected the request for remand to assess alternate accommodation, as the issue was considered during trial, and upheld the eviction decree.

5. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. The respondent was granted time until 30th June 1988 to vacate the premises, subject to conditions of filing an undertaking to pay rent and vacate the premises without inducting others. No costs were awarded in the matter.

---