A S SULOCHANA Vs. C DHARMALTNGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The view taken by the High Court that a tenant sought to be evicted on the ground of unlawful subletting under S. 10(2)(ii)(a)1 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, must himself have been guilty of 'the contravention and that the alleged contravention by his father when he was a tenant can be of no avail for evicting him is assailed in this appeal by special leave. The High Court has so pronounced in the backdrop of the admitted fact that respondent had himself not created any sub-tenancy after he became the tenant in 1968 upon the death of his father. The plea raised by the appellant that the tenancy created in 1952 by the father of respondent rendered him liable to be evicted in the suit instituted by the appellant in 1970 was repelled. The unsuccessful landlord has now invoked this Court's jurisdiction under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Facts not in dispute are:-

(3.) Examining the profile of the view taken by the High Court that the offending subletting must be by the tenant sought to be evicted himself, and not by his predecessor, is concerned, it appears to be blemishless. Section 10(2) opens with the words "A landlord how seeks to evict his tenant" and provides that if the tenant has created a subtenancy without the written consent of the landlord, he will be liable to be evicted. Pray, who is the 'tenant' whom the landlord wants to evict That tenant is the respondent. Did he violate S. 10( 2)(ii)(a) and sublet the rented premises The answer is 'no'. It is of little use to give the answer, not he, but his predecessor, his late father, had sublet the premises. When the statute says the tenant who is sought to be evicted must be guilty of the contravention, the Court cannot say, will suffice guilt of his predecessor in interest'. The flouting of the law, the sin under the Rent Act must be the sin of the tenant sought to be evicted, and not that of his father or predecessor in interest. Respondent inherited the tenancy, not the sin, if any, of his father. The law in its wisdom seeks to punish the guilty who commits the sin, and not his son who is innocent of the rent law offence. It being a penal provision in the sense that it visits the violator with the punishment of eviction, it must be strictly construed, for it causes less misery to be sheltered in a jail, than to be shelterless without. Be that as it may, the conclusion recorded by the High Court is fault-free.