Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1990 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (10) TMI 362 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the High Court in the present case while reversing the Trial Court's finding on the question of landlord's reasonable and bone fide requirement of the suit premises exceeded its jurisdiction? Whether the subletting made by M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram to M/s. Super Dry Cleaners of one shop which is a part of the suit premises w.e.f. 1.4, 1948 was unlawful being contrary to any provision of law then in force? Held that:- It is clear that the written consent of the landlord for sub-letting was necessary under the relevant statute applicable on 1.4. 1948 when the sub-letting was made in the present case. The landlord's consent in the letter dated 4.10.1943 was not available on 1.4.1948 after expiry of the contractual tenancy. The rest is only a logical corollary to this conclusion leading to the inevitable result that induction of the sub-tenant M/s. Super Dry Cleaners w.e.f. 1.4.1948 by the tenant M/s. Bhoolchand Chandiram was unlawful being made contrary to the provision of law then in force which constitutes the ground for eviction contained in clause (f) of Sub-section 1 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961. There is, thus, no ground to differ with the conclusion reached by the High Court that the ground of sub-letting has been made out, even though our reasons are different. the ground of sub-letting also was rightly held proved by the High Court in addition to the ground of landlord's reasonable and bona fide requirement, the question of applicability of Sub-section 4 of Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 does not arise and, therefore, it is not necessary to examine the question of comparative hardship. In that view of the matter, the appeals must fail. Appeal dismissed. Grant to the appellants time till 31.3.1991 for vacating the suit premises
|