Supreme Court Judgment on eviction of tenant.

Kapil Bhargava (Mrs.) And Ors v Subhash Chand Aggarwal And Ors
Appellants: Kapil Bhargava(Mrs) And Ors
Respondents: Subhash Chand Aggarwal and Ors
Date: 21/08/2001
Bench: A.P. Mishra, U.C. Banerjee
 
Facts: In the present instance in 1974 Rama Rani and her son Sher Bahadur the original landlord filed an eviction petition in respect of the premises in question under Section 14(l)(b),(d) and (e) of the said Act against Murli Manohar Lal the tenant and ML. Bhargava, the sub-tenant, the appellants are the legal representative of the said sub-tenant. The said M.L. Bhargava was the brother-in-law of the said tenant. The appellant case is, the sub-tenant was residing in the premises in question with his family since June, 1945 and with the consent of the landlord continued to reside therein even after the transfer of the said tenant Murli Manohar Lal from Delhi. On the other hand landlord case is that the tenant had sub-let and parted with the possession in favour of the said M.L. Bhargava without written permission of the landlord. No notice as contemplated under Section 17 of the said Act was served by the sub-tenant on the landlord. Neither tenant nor any member of his family is residing therein for a period of more than six months before filing this eviction petition and the premise is required bona fide for personal need. The landlord aggrieved by this filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal which was dismissed by upholding the findings recorded by the Rent Controller. Thereafter an appeal was preferred under Section 39 of the said Act before the High Court. The High Court by means of the impugned judgment allowed the appeal but confined the eviction decree against the tenant under Section 14(l)(d), on the ground that the tenant was not residing in the premises for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the eviction petition.
Contentions: Mr. M.L. Verma for the appellant submits, High Court erred in decreeing the eviction suit under Section 14(l)(d) in view of concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below that the appellant was a legally constituted sub-tenant by virtue of Section 16(1) of the said Act. The first submission is, how can a lawful sub-tenant be evicted under Section 14(l)(d) in view of the definition of ‘tenant’ under Section 2(1) and provision of Section 16(1) of the said Act. Next it is submitted, once a tenant inducts a sub-tenant over the whole of the premises legally then consequently the tenant vacates the premises in question, thus eviction of sub-tenant under section 14(l)(d) on the ground that tenant is not residing for a period more than six months preceding the application for eviction would not arise. A sub-tenant on these facts is not required to prove this as admittedly a lawful sub-tenant is already in possession of the whole of the premises in question.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that neither there is any such finding by any courts nor any evidence pointed out that after the tenant left, the rent was paid by the sub-tenant on his own behalf and not on behalf of the tenant. A person in possession may continue to live and continue to pay rent which would be payment on behalf of the tenant, unless specific evidence led that the incumbent in possession started paying rent as sub-tenant, receipt issued as sub-tenant or there exist any document of this nature. The Apex Court have not been shown any such plea, evidence or any finding by any of the courts below in this regard.
Decision: Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SUBMITTED BY:- SHUBHANGI GUPTA.