TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms sub-letting without landlord's consent violates law.</h1> <h3>P. John Chandy and Company (P) Ltd. Versus John P. Thomas</h3> P. John Chandy and Company (P) Ltd. Versus John P. Thomas - (2002) 5 SCC 90 Issues Involved:1. Legality of sub-letting without landlord's consent under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.2. Validity of the appellate court's inference of implied consent from the landlord's inaction.3. Evaluation of evidence, particularly the statement of CPW2, regarding the lease terms and sub-letting consent.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Sub-letting Without Landlord's Consent:The appellant challenged the Kerala High Court's decision, which upheld the Rent Controller's order of eviction under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Controller found that the appellant had sub-let the premises without the landlord's consent, which is a violation of the Act. The appellant argued that the sub-letting was known and implicitly consented to by the landlord's predecessors and the current respondent.2. Validity of the Appellate Court's Inference of Implied Consent:The appellate court had inferred implied consent from the landlord's long-term inaction and acceptance of rent, suggesting that the landlord had waived the right to object to the sub-letting. However, the High Court reversed this decision, stating that mere inaction or acceptance of rent does not amount to implied consent. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that consent under Section 11(4)(i) requires a clear, positive act from the landlord, not just inaction or silence.3. Evaluation of Evidence (CPW2's Statement):The evidence provided by CPW2, a former director of the appellant company, was crucial. CPW2 claimed that the lease arrangement included the right to sub-let, but his statement was deemed unreliable by the trial court. The appellate court had selectively relied on parts of CPW2's statement, ignoring his cross-examination where he admitted to having no written lease or clear recollection of the terms. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's comprehensive evaluation, stating that the appellate court's selective reliance amounted to a misreading of the evidence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the sub-letting by the appellant was without the landlord's explicit consent, as required by Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Court emphasized that implied consent cannot be inferred merely from inaction or acceptance of rent; there must be a clear, positive act of consent from the landlord. The appeal was dismissed, and the eviction order was maintained.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
