S. ARPUTAM CHETTIAR Vs. C.P. NARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that was agitated before the learned District Judge in the Civil Revision Petition was, whether the tenant had the right to sublet the premises. It is true that the tenancy was oral and had commenced prior to the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1949. An allegation was made that even prior to the passing of this Act the Tenant has been sub -letting the premises a version which was not accepted by the House Rent Controller who ordered eviction. As against that, there was an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, who thought on what appears to be a mis -construction of the facts that the tenant had been subletting the premises. Actually, evidence of sub -letting was available only from 1952 or thereabouts. The learned Subordinate Judge set aside the order of eviction When the matter was brought before the District Judge in revision, he took the view that even if the original tenancy was an oral one which permitted the tenant to sub -let the premises, after the passing of the Act, the tenant could no longer sub -let the premises without the written authority of the landlord. He accordingly restored the order of eviction passed by the House Rent Controller.

(2.) BEFORE me it has been urged that the learned District Judge was in error. It may be that the learned District Judge did not specifically go into the question whether if the tenant had the authority to sub -let the premises prior to the passing of the Act, such authority could be deemed to have continued and that no further written consent to authorise such sub -letting was necessary after the passing of the Act. But inferentially, I find that the learned District Judge has declined to accept the evidence that there was any case of sub -letting prior to the passing of the Act. I asked the learned Counsel Mr. Shanmugham to point out the evidence or such portions of the judgments of the Courts below dealing with the evidence on this head. Beyond the vague assertion of the tenant that he had been sub -letting the premises previously, there is no evidence to show that there was any such subletting prior to 1952. Such sub -letting, as there was evidence in respect of this case, was only after the passing of the Act. Though the landlord might not have taken any action against the tenant previously, it does not debar him from urging this as a ground for eviction, when the opportunity arose.

(3.) MY attention has been drawn to the judgment of Ramachandra Iyer, J. (Officiating Chief Justice, as he then was) in C.R.P. No. 1247 of 1960, where the learned Judge stated that if the original terms of the tenancy authorised the tenant to sublet and if the landlord had acquiesced in such sub -letting, it could be presumed that there was such authority and that the landlord could not thereafter put this forward as a ground for eviction. But I notice that in that case the fact that the original tenancy had authorised the tenants sub -letting the premises was accepted by the Courts, and that was a finding of fact which was binding upon this Court in revision. Proceeding on that basis, the learned Judge came to the conclusion set out above. As I pointed out, there is no such evidence available in this case. The order of the learned District Judge does not call for any interference. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.