S BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. GULAB JAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this revision, the landlord within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, (XVIII of 1960), hereinafter referred to as the Act is the petitioner. The respondent herein is the sub-tenant. The landlord filed a petition, H. R. C. No. 115 of 1976 on the file of the Rent Controller of Nilgiris, Gudalur, for eviction under section 10 (2) (i) for wilful default, section 10 (2)(ii) (a) for sub-letting and section 14 (1)(b) for demolition and reconstruction under the Act, against five respondents of whom the respondent herein was the fifth. Repondents 1 to 4 before the Rent Controller were the legal representatives of one Ahamed Hussain, who was the original tenant of the premises in question. Respondents 1 to 4 before the Rent Controller, the legal representatives of the original tenant and who assumed the character of tenants within the meaning of the Act, remained ex parte and did not contest the petition for eviction. The subtenant, the respondent herein, alone contested. According to him, the sub letting was done with the consent of the previous landlord Palaniswarni Pandaram, who has gifted the property to the present landlord on 25th September, 1972 he has been paying the rents to the previous landlord Palaniswarni Pandaram because he had no notice of the transfer of ownership and the previous landlord earlier obtained an order of eviction on the same ground of demolition and reconstruction and since there was failure to demolish within the time given by the Court, even after obtaining the possession of the premises, restitution has been obtained and the proceedings are barred under section 19 of the Act. The contest of the sub-tenant was considered by the Rent Controller. He held that there was no wilful default and that the sub-tenancy was with the consent of the previous landlord. However, the Rent Controller upheld the case of the landlord on the question of his requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction and ordered eviction. The bar under section 19 of the Act pleaded by the sub-tenant was not countenanced by the Rent Controller. The chief tenants, respondents 1 to 4, before the Rent Controller, did not take up the matter in appeal The sub-tenant alone preferred an appeal, C. M. A. No. 38 of 1977 before the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris at Ootacamund. The Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller on the question of the landlords requirement of the premises for demolition and reconstruction and held that there was lack of bona fides on the part of the landlord and allowed the appeal, dismissing the petition for eviction. The present revision is directed against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) MR. N. Sivamani, learned counsel for the petitioner, would primarily urge that the chief tenants having not contested the petition for eviction, the sub-tenant has no locus standi to contest the petition for eviction and thwart the move by the landlord to obtain possession. The learned counsel would further submit that even otherwise, the bar under section 19 of the Act would not apply because the present petition for eviction has the backing of the new cause of action and the tests to be applied under section 14(1)(b) of the Act get amply satisfied and hence the landlord is entitled to the order of eviction.

(3.) A similar question under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XV of 1946) arose for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Govinda Menon and Krishnaswami Nayudu JJ. in Devaraja Bhatt v. V. S. Raja1 and Govinda Menon, J, speaking for the Division Bench, observed that: Under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act a sub-tenant as such is not recognised and if a landlord brings a suit in ejectment a sub-tenant let into possession cannot raise any question and submit that be has a status under the Act which should be safeguarded by its previsions.