1987 (2) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt and the sub-tenant (Respondent 2 and 1 respectively) in respect of two premises, there was a compromise between the landlord and the tenant and in terms thereof, the Rent Controller decreed the eviction of the first respondent from the premises sub-leased to him. An Appeal to the appellate Authority proved of no avail and hence the first respondent filed Civil Revision No. 907 of 1977 under Section 15(5) of the Act to the High Court. The High Court allowed the revision holding that no order of eviction can be passed under Section 13(2) of the Act as the sub-tenancy had been created before the Act came into force in the Union Territory of Chandigarh where the property is situate. The High Court's order is challenged in this appeal. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st ground was that when the second respondent had admitted the factum of the unauthorised sub-lease and when the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had acted on his admission, the High Court was in error in interfering with the order of eviction concurrently passed by the courts below. This argument is devoid of merit because the admitted position is that the Act came into force in the area concerned only on 4.11.1972 whereas the sub-lease had been effected much earlier. In view of that position the High Court was entitled to set right the error committed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority in ordering eviction under Section 13(2) of the Act. As a matter of fact the High Court was bound to set right the error in view....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it is taken that there was no lease deed prohibiting the creation of a sub-lease, the sub-tenancy had become unlawful from 24.1.72 when the second respondent was served a notice of termination of tenancy issued by the appellant. This argument is also not tenable because the sub-lease had been effected before the notice of termination of tenancy was issued. Hence the notice of termination of tenancy subsequently issued would not make the sub-lease created earlier unlawful in any manner. 7. Another argument advanced was that a sub-tenant does not have rights independent of the tenant and as such when the second respondent has suffered an order of eviction, the first respondent was equally bound by the order. Three decisions were cited to for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s case though the two items of property were given on lease at different times, the parties had treated the lease as a composite one and that was why a common notice had been issued for terminating the tenancy of both the items and furthermore a single petition had been filed under Section 13(2) to seek an order of eviction, in respect of both the items of the lease property. 10. The lessee has a right to transfer by sub-lease even a part of his interest in the property as provided in Section 108(j) of the Transfer of Property Act. A transferee from the lessee has a right to claim the benefit of contract to the lessee's interest, vis-a-vis the landlord, (vide Section 108 second paragraph of Clause (c) of the Transfer of Property Act) T....