ABU Vs. BEEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The tenant of a building, against whom an order for eviction has been passed by the appellate authority, confirmed by the District Court in revision, in reversal of the order dismissing the petition of the landlord by the Rent Control Court, challenges that order before me under S.115 C. P. C. The landlord, on an ambitious project for eviction, pleaded arrears of rent, destruction of the utility of the building by committing waste and subletting, as the grounds for throwing the tenant out of the premises. The first two failed even in the Court of first instance and were not pursued wisely in the higher Courts. The last ground of subletting, although did not find favour with the Rent Control Court, appealed to the appellate authority and was approved by the revisional authority. We are, therefore, concerned only with whether the 1st respondent in RCOP. No. 23 of 1966 had sublet the building or a portion of the building to the 2nd respondent, his brother inlaw. S.11(4) states.

(2.) The appellate and the revisional authorities were wobbling, if I may say so, on the question as to whether there was a transfer of the leasehold right or subletting only. In view of the fact that there is no clear proof of any sublease, the appellate authority proceeded to hold:

(3.) However, the petitioner's counsel argues before me that there must be at least a transfer of the lease or a subletting by the lessee. All that has been proved in this case is a mere transfer of possession which can be explained even without a transfer of a lease or a sublease. In this connection, Shri Bhaskaran Nambiar, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew my attention to a decision reported in Petroleum Workers Union v. Mohammed and Co. Madras ( AIR 1967 Mad. 33 ). Venkatadri J. quoted a passage from Jackson v. Simons (1923 (1) Ch. 373) wherein Romer J. had observed thus: