Sub-letting and unauthorised construction can justify eviction where exclusive possession, no consent, and lease breaches are proved.

Exclusive possession of hotel rooms for consideration, together with the grantor's lack of retained control and suppression of the best evidence, supported a finding that the occupiers were tenants and that the arrangements amounted to sub-letting under rent control law; those sub-lettings therefore furnished a ground of eviction. The lease's express prohibition on transfer without written consent defeated any claim of implied consent, and no waiver was proved because there was no clear, informed relinquishment of the landlord's right. Unauthorised construction of a new room in breach of a known head-lease condition, followed by its letting out, also attracted the statutory eviction ground. The tenant was liable to eviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the occupiers of rooms in the hotel were tenants and the arrangements amounted to sub-letting within the rent control law, (ii) whether the landlord had given express or implied consent to, or waived objection against, the sub-lettings, and (iii) whether the tenant had committed a ground of eviction by making unauthorised constructions and otherwise dealing with the premises contrary to the head lease.

Issue (i): whether the occupiers of rooms in the hotel were tenants and the arrangements amounted to sub-letting within the rent control law

Analysis: Exclusive possession of the rooms, payment of valuable consideration, and the withholding of the best evidence of the grants justified the inference that the occupants were tenants and not mere licensees. A room in a hotel may ordinarily suggest a licence, but that inference is not conclusive where the hotel-keeper retains no control over the apartment. The statutory scheme treated sub-letting of hotel rooms as capable of attracting eviction under the rent control provisions even though a room in a hotel was excluded from the definition of premises for some other purposes.

Conclusion: The arrangements were sub-lettings and constituted grounds of eviction under the Act.

Issue (ii): whether the landlord had given express or implied consent to, or waived objection against, the sub-lettings

Analysis: The lease expressly prohibited transfer or sub-lease without written consent, so no implied consent could be read into the covenant to run a first class hotel. The correspondence relied upon did not amount to written consent to the sub-lettings in question, nor did it establish a general consent for future sub-lettings. Waiver was not proved because there was no clear intentional relinquishment of a known right with full knowledge of the relevant facts.

Conclusion: Neither consent nor waiver was established.

Issue (iii): whether the tenant had committed a ground of eviction by making unauthorised constructions and otherwise dealing with the premises contrary to the head lease

Analysis: The head lease prohibited erection of new buildings without prior written consent, and the tenant had notice of that condition. The evidence showed unauthorised construction of at least one new room which was then let out, thereby showing dealing with the premises contrary to the Government-imposed condition. That was sufficient to attract the statutory ground of eviction under the relevant clause.

Conclusion: The ground under clause (k) was made out.

Final Conclusion: The tenant was liable to eviction on the statutory grounds proved, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exclusive possession for consideration, coupled with the absence of retained control by the grantor and the withholding of the best evidence of the arrangement, supports a finding of sub-letting; express contractual prohibition and lack of clear knowledge defeat implied consent and waiver; and unauthorised construction in breach of a known head-lease condition furnishes a statutory ground for eviction.

---