TOHELRAM RAVALDAS GIDWANI Vs. PARSHOTAMDAS CHHAGANLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the proof of monetary consideration received by tenant from his subtenant be a sine qua non for an ejectment decree or even in absence thereof an eviction decree could be legally recorded against a tenant who has parted with exclusive possession of the demise premises with no animus to return to use the premises or has lost control over it in view of the statutory expression that the tenant has since coming into operation of this act unlawfully sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein is the sole but substantial question requiring judicial examination investigation and adjudication in this Revision Application filed by an unsuccessful tenant by invoking the powers of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 (Bombay Rent Act).

(2.) The petitioners are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff. The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 104/77 for eviction against the defendants on two grounds The plaintiff is the owner of the immovable property known as Kirtikunj situated near ST bus station at Modasa wherein there were 37 rooms out of which the roon Nos. 6 and 12 (interlinked) were rented to petitioner No. 1-original defendant No. 1 by virtue of a rent note Ex. 33 dated 25 on monthly rent of Rs. 30.00 which is hereinafter referred to as the demise premises Thus the respondent-original plaintiff is the landlord and petitioner No. 1 is the original defendant No. 1 tenant of the demise premises. Petitioner No. 2 is the original defendant No. 2 who is the brother of the tenant and who is alleged to be the subtenant. The parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for the sake of brevity and convenience.

(3.) The plaintiff by filing the aforesaid suit for eviction inter alia contended that defendant No. 1 has sublet transferred or assigned his interest in the demise premises to his brother defendant No. 2 and that the tenant has committed breach of the terms and conditions of rent note. He also alleged that the tenant has made permanent construction contrary to the term of the rent note as well as against the provisions of Bombay Rent Act. Thus on the ground of subletting transfer or assignment under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act and also on the ground of permanent construction under Section 13 the suit came to be filed.