TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, the landlord's inaction, knowledge of sub-letting, or acceptance of rent amounted to consent to sub-let, so as to defeat the ground of eviction.
Analysis: The tenant's claim of consent rested mainly on long-standing sub-letting, alleged knowledge of the landlord, acceptance of rent, and oral evidence said to show an original arrangement permitting sub-letting. The evidence was found insufficient to establish any clear grant of a right to sub-let. The provision requires that the lease itself confer such a right, or that the landlord's consent be shown by a positive and unambiguous act. Mere silence, inaction, or acceptance of rent does not, by itself, amount to consent or waiver. The appellate finding based on selective reliance on witness testimony was treated as unsustainable, and the inference of implied consent was rejected.
Conclusion: Implied consent was not proved, and the landlord was entitled to eviction on the ground of unauthorised sub-letting.
Final Conclusion: The eviction order was upheld because consent to sub-let under the statute must be affirmative and clear, and mere inaction or passive conduct is insufficient to protect the tenant from eviction.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965, consent to sub-letting must be shown by a positive and unambiguous act of the landlord; mere inaction, silence, or acceptance of rent does not constitute implied consent.
TaxTMI 
