TMI Blog1967 (3) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt had not been paid for six months, and (2) that there had been unlawful sub-letting by the tenants-in-chief to the appellant. The suit was resisted by the three tenants-in-chief. One of them took the defence that the premises had been taken by a firm at a time when it consisted of the three defendants. But later defendant No. 1 no longer remained a partner of the firm and had nothing to do with the premises and the suit against him was not maintainable. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand contended that the rent claimed (i.e., ₹ 26) was excessive and prayed that standard rent should be fixed for the premises. These defendants further said that defendant No. 1 was no longer a partner of the firm and that in his place defendant No. 4 (i.e., the present appellant) had become partner. Thus defendants Nos. 2 and 3 denied that there was any sub-letting, unlawful or otherwise, to the appellant. It was further stated that the rent due had been deposited on the first date of hearing and in consequence there were no arrears due to the respondent. The appellant also filed a written-statement. He denied that he was a sub-tenant but his case was that the entire interest of defenda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant on the ground that he was not a sub-tenant and also on the ground that he was not protected under s. 15(2) of the Act as amended in 1959. On the question of arrears, the appellate court held that there were no arrears. But on the other question the appellate court seems to have taken a curious view. It did not examine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court that the present appellant was a sub- tenant. It took the view that as the present appellant has in his written-statement denied that he was a sub-tenant, he could not be a sub-tenant. It then went on to hold that as the present appellant was in possession and as he was not a sub-tenant on his showing he must be held to be a trespasser because he had failed to prove assignment. So holding that the present appellant was a trespasser, it ordered his ejectment on the ground that benefit of s. 15(2) as amended in 1959 could only be available to a sub-tenant, which the present appellant was not on his own showing. The appellate court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the trial court and ordered that the present appellant should hand over possession of the suit premises to the respondents wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot interfere with the decision of the appellate court however wrong it might be. 6. We do not think is necessary to decide the question of jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure in the circumstance of this case, for we have come to the conclusion that though the question of jurisdiction had not been urged before the High Court it stares one in the face on the judgment of the appellate court. We are satisfied that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for ejectment against the present appellant in the manner in which it did so. We have already indicated that the appellate court took the curious view that the present appellant was a trespasser. Now this was no one's case in the present litigation. The respondents alleged that the present appellant was a sub-tenant. The present appellant contended that he was an assignee while two of the tenants-in-chief contended that he was their partner. In the circumstances it is curious that the appellate court came to the conclusion that he was a trespasser. But assuming that finding, if correct, cannot be assailed in revision under s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -chief is not ordered to be ejected and there is no such order by the appellate court, it follows that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to order the ejectment merely of the sub-tenant assuming that the appellant was a sub-tenant. But it has been urged on behalf of the respondents that on the determination of the tenancy by notice on November 30, 1956, the appellant became a tenant-in-chief under s. 14 of the Act, and the reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of this Court in Anand Niwas (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi (1954) 4 S.C.R. 892. Section 14 in these terms; Where the interest of a tenant of any premises is determined for any reason, any sub-tenant to whom the premises or any part thereof have been lawfully sub-let before the commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rents Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be deemed to become the tenant of the landlord on the same terms and conditions as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued. 8. The argument is that s. 14 relates to contractual tenancy and the interest of a tenant is determined as soon as the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions of s. 14 are satisfied be deemed to be a tenant of the landlord. The interest of a tenant who for purposes of s. 14 is a contractual tenant come to an end completely only when he is not only no longer a contractual tenant but also when he has lost the right to remain in possession which s. 12 has given to him and is no longer even a statutory tenant. In other words s. 14 would come into play in favour of the sub-tenant only after the tenancy of the contractual tenant has been determined by notice and the contractual tenant has been ordered to be ejected under s. 28 on any of the grounds in s. 12 or s. 13. Till that event happens or till he gives up the tenancy himself the interest if a tenant who may be a contractual tenant for purposes of s. 14 cannot be said to have determined i.e., come to an end completely in order to give rise to a tenancy between the pre-existing sub-tenant and the landlord. In the present case we have already indicated that the interest of the tenants-in-chief does not seem to have come to an end by their eviction, for the appellate court does not seem to have ordered their eviction nor have they given up the tenancy themselves. In that view the sub-te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
