P.N. SUNDARAM IYER Vs. T.K. SUBBIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Madurai, setting aside the order of the authorities appointed under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and directing eviction of the tenant. The tenant is the petitioner before me. Of the two grounds alleged for sustaining the petition for eviction, one of them, viz., wilful default in the payment of rent, has been found in favour of the tenant by all the Courts below. The second ground which alone is material for the present revision petition was that the tenant had unauthorised by sublet the premises. It is the case of the tenant that under the terms of the original lease, there was unlimited authority in him to sublet the premises. It is said that there is a written document to evidence the agreement and that the same has been suppressed by the landlord. An investigation of that question has been rendered unnecessary, as on 4th January 1928, the parties have entered into another agreement with respect to the tenant's right to sublet. The first agreement if any must be taken to have been superseded by it. In that agreement, which is in the form of a letter (Ex. A. 3) by the tenant, the tenant stated that there were four sub -tenants on the date thereof, and that he would not sublet any further. Actually, it appears that he transgressed this undertaking and sublet the properties to nearly ten sub -tenants. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority held that there was authority in the tenant to sublet, and dismissed the petition. This order has been set aside by the learned District Judge, Madurai, sitting in revision, on the ground, that whatever might have been the original understanding between the parties, the authority should be regarded, after 4th January, 1958, as a limited one, and that, as the tenant had exceeded that authority, it is a case of subletting without the permission of the landlord. In my opinion, that view taken by the learned District Judge is the correct one. But, Mr. N. Sivamani, appearing for the tenant, contends that the only question under S. 10 (2) (a) will be whether there is any authority or not, and that it will not be for the Court in proceedings taken under the Act to investigate the extent of the authority. In other words, the contention is that, once it is as proved that there is some authority in the tenant to sublet the premises it will not be for the Rent Controller to find out whether that authority has been exceeded or not; if such authority is exceeded, the right of the landlord, according to learned Counsel, will be to sue for a breach of the contract for any damage sustained by him. I am unable to accept the contention. Under S. 10 (1) (a), a tenant will be liable for eviction if he had sublet the entire building or any portion thereof, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. If the lease confers a limited right, the tenant cannot obviously exceed that limit, for, if he were to do so, it will be a case of acting without the authority of the landlord. I am, therefore, of opinion that the sub -letting in the instant case beyond limit agreed to in Ex. A. 3, came within S. 10 (2) (a) and that the tenant will be liable for eviction. The order of the learned District Judge is therefore affirmed.

(2.) The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.