PARVINDER SINGH Vs. RENU GAUTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit premises consist of a shop bearing No. 96/1, Lower Bazar, Shimla, governed by the H. P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987. The appellant is the landlord-cum-owner of the shop. It was let out to late Vijay Gautam under an oral lease. On 31-12-1988, partnership deed was signed between late Vijay Gautam and Harbhajan Singh, the respondent No. 3 herein. On 26-6-1991, Vijay Gautam died. The partnership stood dissolved consequent thereupon. On 29-6-1991, another deed of partnership was signed between respondent No. 1, the widow of late Vijay Gautam acting for herself and as guardian of respondent No. 2, the minor son of Vijay Gautam, on the one hand and Harbhajan Singh, respondent No. 3 on the other hand. On 7-7-1992, appellant initiated proceeding for eviction of the respondents from the shop alleging that the tenant Vijay Gautam had sublet the premises to Harbhajan Singh which subletting has been continued by the heirs - Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, after the death of Vijay Gautam. A ground of default in payment of rent was also taken. The suit for eviction was dismissed by the Controller and the dismissal was upheld by the appellate authority as also by the High Court in civil revision. Feeling aggrieved, the landlord has filed this appeal by special leave.

(2.) A perusal of the three judgments - impugned herein - shows that the ground for eviction for default in payment of rent has been negatived by all the three Courts. So far as the ground of subletting is concerned, the plea has not been gone into on merits by any of the Courts because of the law laid down by a two-Judges Bench of this Court in A. S. Sulo-chana vs. C. Dharmalingam, (1987) 1 SCC 180. In A. S. Sulochanas case, the tenant was sought to be evicted on the ground of subletting within the meaning of Section 10 (2)(ii)(a) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The facts found therein were that the original landlord and tenant between whom the lease was created had both died. No evidence, direct or circumstantial, was available wherefrom it could be inferred if the lease prohibited the tenant from creating a sub-tenancy or whether the sub-tenancy was created by the tenant without the written consent of the landlord. Under the Tamil Nadu Act, the landlord could not succeed in evicting the tenant without establishing that Section 10(2)(ii)(a) was violated. Thus, the Court found that an inference as to creation of an unlawful sub-tenancy within the meaning of Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act could not be drawn. However, the Court went on to observe :-

(3.) A. S. Sulochanas case came up for the consideration of a three-Judges Bench of this Court in Imdad Ali vs. Keshav Chand and others, (2003) 4 SCC 635, though in the context of dealing with a ground for eviction under a local rent control law of Madhya Pradesh. A. S. Sulochanas case was distinguished and also adversely commented upon. The Court felt that in A. S. Sulochanas case the Division Bench was influenced by the opening clause of the relevant provision in Tamil Nadu Act which begins with "a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant" so as to hold that the facts constituting the ground for eviction should be referable to the present tenant and not to his predecessor who had already died. The Court further held in Imdad Alis case :-