K ACHYUTA BHAT Vs. VEERAMANENI MANGA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave by a tenant arises out of a common judgment rendered bythe High Court of Andhra Pradesh in four Civil Writ Petitions. Two of the Revision Petitions were filed by the appellant herein and the other two were filed by one Narsimha Murthy, the second respondent herein. By a common judgment the High Court dismissed all the four revision petitions. while Narsimha Murthy has not preferred any appeal the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave to question -the legality and propriety of the decree for eviction passed against him on the ground that he had unauthorisedly sublet the leased premises to the second respondent for running a hotel.

(2.) Originally the building bearing door Nos. 7-2-606, 607, 617 and 618 (old door No. 2540) Rashtrapati Road, Secunderabad belonged to one Bhima Rao. The appellant took the ground floor of the premises on lease in the year 1953 from the said Bhima Rao on monthly rent of Rs. 250/- for running a hotel in the name and style of Sharada Bhavan. In or about September 1967 Bhima Rao conveyed the premises by means of Deed of Gift to his daughter Manga Devi, the first respondent herein and the appellant duly attorned his tenancy and was paying her the rent. After August 1969 the hotel came to be run by the second respondent instead of the appellant. As the first respondent had reasons to believe that the appellant had either transferred his rights under the lease or sublet the leased premises to the second respondent, she terminated the tenancy by means of a notice with effect from 31st January, 1971 and called upon the appellant to surrender possession thereafter. The appellant refused to vacate and sent a reply refuting the allegations contained in the notice issued to him. This led to the first respondent filing a petition under S. 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act' hereafter) to seek the eviction of the appellant and the second respondent on three grounds viz. (1) wilful default in payment of rent, (2) unauthorised subletting and (3) causing waste to the property. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on the second and third grounds. The appellant and the second respondent preferred seperate appeals to the Appellate Authority and both the appeals were dismissed. Thereafter the two affected parties filed two revisions each against the dismissal of the appeals and the High Court clubbed all the four revisions and rendered a common judgment dismissing all the revision petitions. The High Court, however, affirmed the finding of the courts below only on the ground of sub-letting and consequently, the sole question for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court has erred in law in upholding the order for eviction passed by the first two Courts on the ground of subletting.

(3.) Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant took us through the terms of the agreement Exhibit R-14 entered into between the appellant and the second respondent as well as the relevant portions of the judgments of the Courts below and the High Court and argued that this was a case where the appellant had only transferred the managing rights of the hotel to the second respondent and hence there was no basis or material for the Rent Controller or the Appellate Court to hold that the appellant had sublet the leased premises to the second respondent and therefore the High Court too was in error in confirming the order of eviction passed against the appellant and the second respondent. The learned counsel further contended that neither the agreement nor the conduct of the parties afforded any ground for taking the view that the appellant had transferred his rights under the lease or had sublet the premises to the second respondent, and on the other hand there was adequate material to show that the appellant had retained his rights in the leased premises notwithstanding his placing the hotel business in the hands of the second respondent. To substantiate these contentions Dr. Chitale laid stress on certain clauses in the agreement which seek to emphasise that the transfer of rights pertained to the business alone and not the leasehold rights of the appellant in the leased premises. The clauses referred to are as follows. Clause 2 sets out that the first party (the appellant) "has agreed to allow the second party (the second respondent) to manage the said Sharada Bhawan with all the furniture etc.". Clause 7 interdicts the second party from permitting "the use of the premises for any purpose other than that for which it is being used viz. as a vegetarian restaurant" without the consent in writing of the first party. Clause 8 enjoins the second party to "maintain the standard and reputation which the said business has earned and acquired". Clause 9 prohibits the second party from assigning or underletting or otherwise parting with the business without the permission in writing of the first party. Clause 11 stipulates that the second party shall observe all the rules and regulations governing the licences granted to the first party by the Municipality, Police etc. and further sets out that if any breach is committed by the second party he should indemnify the first party. Under Clause 13 the first party has reserved right to inspect the business at all reasonable times to satisfy himself that the second party was fulfilling the conditions set in the agreement. Clause 15 provides that on the expiry of the agreement the second party should "peacefully and quietly surrender and hand over possession of the business to the first party together with all the furniture, fixtures, utensils etc." Clauses 16 and 17 are of significance for both parties and, therefore, they are extracted in full:-