TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1982 (4) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the appellant as the tenant and the respondent as the landlady of the premises. The landlady filed her present petition (R.A. No. 163 of 1977) in the Court of Rent Controller Chandigarh, under S. 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the eviction of the tenant on two grounds, namely, non-payment of rent and sub- letting of the flat portion and Barsati portion of the premises. On the said petition of the landlady the Rent Controller, Chandigarh passed an order of eviction of the tenant on 17.11.1977 only on the ground of sub-letting. The other ground, namely non-payment of rent by the tenant, did not S succeed. Against the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed an appeal under S. 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 9.8.1978 dismissed the appeal of the tenant and upheld the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller. Against the judgment and order of the appellate authority, the tenant filed a revision petition under S. 15 of the Act before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court by its judgment dated 19.9.78 dismissed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable; Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of the application for ejectment after due service pays or tenders the arrears of rent and interest at six per cent per annum on such arrears together with the cost of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent within the time aforesaid. (ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord- (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof; or x x x x x x x x In the instant case, there is no dispute that the tenant had sub-let the Flat portion and Barsati portion of said premises to sub-tenants. There is, however, a dispute as to when the sub-tenants were inducted by the tenant. As no clear finding had been recorded in the judgment of the Rent Controller or of the Appellate Authority or the High Court as to when the subten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t does not come within the mischief of the said provision. Mr. Tarkunde contends that it is not in dispute that the tenant had sublet the flat portion and the Barsati portion of the premises in terms of the authority given to the tenant in writing and as the sub-letting has been done by the tenant with the written consent of the landlady after the commencement of the Act and of the portions the tenant was authorised to sub-let, there can be no violation of the provisions of S. 13 (2) (ii) (a) of the Act. It is the contention of Mr. Tarkunde that as the subletting was done by the tenant in terms of the written authority given by the landlady to the tenant, the subletting can constitute no ground for eviction of the tenant within the meaning of the said section of the Act and there can be no order of eviction of the tenant on the ground of subletting by the tenant. Mr. Tarkunde has submitted that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the sub-tenants had continued in occupation after the month of April, 1974, and as the terms of contractual tenancy ended on the expiry of the month of April, 1974, the continuance of sub-tenants inducted with the written consent of the landlady....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of the landlord as given in S. 2 (c) is as follows : " 'landlord' means any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the benefit, of any other person, or administrator for any other person, and includes a tenant who sub-lets any building or rented land in the manner hereinafter authorised, and, every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord". The definition of tenant as mentioned in S. 2 (i) reads: " 'tenant' means any person by whom or on whose account rent is payable for a building or rented land and includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a person placed in occupation of a building or rented land by its tenant, unless with the consent in writing of the landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent or fees in a public market, car- stand or slaughter-house or of rents for shops has been farmed out or leased by a municipal town or notified area committee". Mr. Tarkunde argues that the definition of landlord clearly indicated that a 'landlord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'Where an application under sub-section (2) or sub section (3) for evicting a tenant has been rejected by the Controller, the tenancy shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to continue on the same terms and conditions as before and shall not be terminable by the landlord except on one or more of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3). This special provision is provided by way of abundant precaution only. Even without this a tenant continuing in possession after the termination of the contractual tenancy and until an eviction order is passed against him continues on the same terms and conditions as before and he cannot be evicted unless a ground is made out for the eviction according to be the State Rent Act." Relying on the aforesaid observations, Mr. Tarkunde has argued that even on the expiry of the contractual tenancy in the month of April, the tenant continues to be a tenant under the statute on the same terms and conditions as a statutory tenant and be continues to enjoy the authority of subletting of the flat portion and the barsati portion of the said premises in terms of the agreement originally entered into by and bet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and also any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy whether before or after the commencement of this Act; but shall not include any person against whom any order or decree for eviction has been made'. The definition makes a person continuing in possession after the determination of his tenancy a tenant unless after a decree or order for eviction has been made against him, thus putting him on par with a person whose contractual tenancy still subsists. The incidents of such tenancy and a contractual tenancy must therefore be the same unless any provision of the Act conveyed a contrary intention. That under the Act such a tenant retains an interest in 13 the premises, and not merely a personal right of occupation, will also appear from section 14 which contains provisions restricting the tenant's power of sub-letting. Section 14 is in these terms: 'Sec. 14. Restrictions on sub-letting:-(1) No tenant shall, without the previous consent in writing of the landlord- (a) sub-let the whole or any part of the accommodation held by him as a tenant; or (b) transfer or assign his rights in the tenancy or in any part thereof. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S. Pratap Singh v. The State of Punjab. Mr. Tarkunde has further argued that even if reliance is to be placed on the tape-recorded conversation, it must then be held on the basis of the evidence recorded therein that the contractual tenancy had continued beyond the period of the month of April. According to Mr. Tarkunde, in the present case the landlady had not merely accepted the rent which the landlady bad in fact done, on the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy, but the tape-recorded conversation clearly indicates that the tenancy was treated as continuing between the parties, notwithstanding the expiry of the period and the tenant was recognised as tenant with lawful authority to sub-let even after the expiry of the month of April, 1974. Mr. Tarkunde on the basis of the aforesaid contention has submitted that the order of eviction against the tenant on the ground of subletting in the instant case is erroneous and should be set aside. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlady, has submitted that the tenancy, in the instant case was created only for the month of April, 1974. He submits that on the expiry of April, 1974, the tenancy by efflux of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout the written consent of the landlord and as such wrongful and illegal to enable the landlord to evict the tenant on the ground of such subletting. Mr. Mehta has submitted that this view which has been consistently held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, has also been followed by the High Court in the instant case. In support of this submission Mr. Mehta has referred to the decision in the case of Kartar Singh and others v. Tarlok Singh and others which has been referred by the learned Judge in the judgment under appeal. Mr. Mehta has also relied on the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Shri Kidar Nath v. Smt. Kartar Kumar, and also in the case of Gurdas Ram v. Hans Raj. According to Mr. Mehta, this view has held the field in Punjab and Haryana all these years and this is the settled law in the State. Mr. Mehta further submits that as sub- tenants have continued to remain in possession after the month of April, the subletting must be held to be without any written consent and illegal to furnish a valid ground for the eviction of the tenant and all the courts including the High Court have properly ordered the eviction of the tenant. Mr. Mehta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of something more have the effect of creating a fresh tenancy or continuing the contractual tenancy already determined; and it is his argument that it cannot be said that a fresh tenancy was created or the tenancy was allowed to continue on the expiry of the month of April merely because the landlady had accepted the rent from the tenant on the expiry of the period of the tenancy after the month of April. Mr. Mehta, therefore, submits that in the instant case the order for eviction has been rightly passed and this appeal should be dismissed. Before we proceed to consider the main question involved in this appeal, namely, whether the existence of sub-tenants in the premises after the expiry of the term of contractual tenancy, necessarily renders the subletting illegal and furnishes a ground for eviction within the meaning of S. 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act, we propose to dispose of the other question as to whether there was any subletting by the tenant in the month of May. On a careful consideration of the report of the Rent Controller on the issue remitted to him by this Court, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Rent Controller that the tenant had sub-let one bed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereof, the tenant shall be Liable to be evicted on the ground of such subletting. The requirement of the section, therefore, is that after the commencement of 'the Act there has to be subletting by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord to enable the landlord to recover possession of the premises on the ground of subletting It, therefore, necessarily follows that if after the commencement of the Act, the tenant has sublet with the written consent of the landlord, such subletting will not furnish any ground or clause of action for the eviction of the tenant by the landlord. It is to be noted that after the tenant has lawfully sublet with the written consent of the landlord, sub-tenant becomes a lawful sub-tenant; and as such he becomes a 'tenant' within the meaning of the Act under the tenant as his landlord and continues to enjoy all the protection available to a 'tenant' under the Act and the tenant who inducts such sub-tenant is not entitled to evict him as landlord of the sub-tenant except in accordance with provisions of the Act. As the tenant enjoys protection against eviction in terms of the provisions of the Act and is not liable to be e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e written consent of the landlady was there. The continuance in possession of such subtenants in the portions lawfully let out to them on the expiry of the month of April does not amount to or have the effect of any fresh sub-letting by the tenant on the expiry of the month of April; and, it cannot be said that the tenant "has sublet" afresh on the expiry of the month of April. The right of possession that the sub- tenants enjoy on the basis of lawful induction as sub-tenants is assured to the sub-tenants as a "tenant" within the meaning of the Act. As a tenant. in spite of the determination of his tenancy continues the right to remain in possession as a statutory tenant and enjoys the protection against eviction by virtue of the provisions contained in the statute, a sub-tenant who is lawfully inducted, is also recognised by the statute to be a "tenant' within the meaning of the Act and he must necessarily enjoy the protection against eviction afforded to a tenant by the Act. A lawful sub-letting on the basis of the provisions of the Act does not become unlawful merely because the contractual tenancy of the tenant comes to an end. A tenant incurs the liability to be evicted, i....