VISHRAM KRISHNA ANVEKAR Vs. VENKATESH VITHALRAO KAMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the 2nd defendant in the original Court and was impleaded as a sub-tenant under the 1st defendant, the principal tenant who was sought to be evicted by the respondents under the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Rent Act. The landlords sought eviction on three grounds : (1) Default in the payment of rent; (2) bona fide personal requirement; and (3) unlawful subletting. During the pendency of the matter before the trial Court, the 1st defendant admitted default on his part in payment of rent from 6-2-1957 onwards and submitted to a decree for eviction by consent. It would appear that he actually gave up possession on 9-8-1963. Thereafter the proceedings were continued only against the 2nd defendant. The claim of bona fide requirement was held against the plaintiffs. So far as subletting was concerned, the trial Court held that in view of S.61 of the Mysore Rent Control Act, 1961 the subletting cannot be regarded as unlawful at all and that therefore the sub-tenant upon the eviction of the main tenant must be held to have become a statutory tenant for whose eviction the landlords were referred to such other separate proceedings as they may be advised to take.

(2.) Upon appeal by the landlords, the District Judge has held that S.61 can be depended upon by a sub-tenant to retain possession only in cases where the main tenancy was sought to be put an end to on the ground of unlawful subletting, but that if as in this case the main tenant was evicted on the ground of default of rent and compliance with all the provisions of S.12 of the Bombay Rent Act, the sub-tenant cannot claim the right to remain in possession any longer.

(3.) In this revision petition against the appellate order directing his eviction, the point strongly pressed by Mr. Guttal on behalf of the petitioner is that the lower appellate Court's view of the availability of the protection under S.61 to him is erroneous. Now S.61 of the Mysore Rent Control Act reads as follows :