M.NIRMAL KUMAR Vs. AMARTH KAWAR BAFNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revisions are filed challenging the order of the Executing Court in allowing the application under Ss. 47 read with 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by the 7th respondent in the main RCOP and dismissing the connected execution applications.

(2.) The present revisions are filed by the landlords as against all the sub- tenants. The brief facts leading to filing of these revisions are as follows:

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would mainly submit that the lease is for a period of 9 years. Originally the chief tenant was inducted as a tenant in the year 2001, lease was expired on 31/12/2009. Though the lease deed confers the right to sublet, the tenant cannot exceed the limit allowing the sub-tenant to continue the proceedings. It will be a case of acting without the authority of landlord. Subletting beyond the lease period will give rise to cause of action for the eviction of the tenant. Though the permission was granted to sublet premises, no consent has been obtained from the landlord to sublet the building to the respondents herein. The Executing Court has misdirected itself and held that the decree passed is not only against the chief tenant and the sub-tenant inexecutable. When the chief tenant surrendered the tenancy and symbolic possession has been recorded by the High Court, the Executing Court holding that such symbolic possession is a void cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The Executing Court has omitted to consider the scheme of the rent control legislation. Whereas, it swayed away by the principles of transfer of property Act which is not valid in the eye of law. Hence, the order of the Executing Court has to be set aside.