RAJAMANNAR CHETTIAR Vs. VELAYUTHA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE landlord who succeeded before the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, in securing an order for eviction against the respondents herein and who lost before the Appellate Authority is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. THE petitioner filed H.R.C.O.P.No.188 of 1982 before the Rent Controller, Pondicherry, under Section 10(2)(i) and (ii) (a) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969 as amended by the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) (Amendment) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for an order of eviction against the respondents herein on the ground that his tenant, the 1st respondent herein, had committed wilful default in the payment of rents from July, 1981 onwards and has also, without his consent in writing, sub-leased the premises let out to him in favour of the 2nd respondent. In the counter filed by the 1st respondent herein, he stated that the rent had been paid by him regularly to the petitioner and that the petitioner had consented to the sublease of the premises by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent and only pursuant to that, the sublease had been effected by him in favour of the 2nd respondent in July, 1981. A further plea was also raised by him to the effect that under the lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, he had the right to sublease the property which right had accrued in his favour even in 1951 long prior to the coming into force of the Act in Pondicherry on 1-8-1969. THE 2nd respondent in his counter took up the stand that the 1st respondent represented to him that he had the power and authority to sublease and believing that representation, he had paid certain amounts to the 1st respondent and took also certain machineries for carrying on manufacture of vermicelli and therefore, he is not liable to be evicted.

(2.) BEFORE the Rent Controller, on behalf of the petitioner, Exs.P-1 and P-2 were filed arid the petitioner was examined as P.W.1, while, on behalf of the respondents, the 1st respondent, examined himself as R.W.1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Rent Controller concluded that the lease of the premises was granted by the petitioner in favour of the 1st respondent only in 1973 after the provisions of the Act had come into force and therefore, the Articles of the French Code Civil will not be applicable to the lease in question and as no consent in writing was given by the petitioner for subleasing the premises to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner had made out a case for the eviction of the respondents on the ground that there had been an unauthorised subletting of the premises. In the result, an order for eviction was passed against the respondents herein.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even on the case of the 1st respondent, there had been subletting after the coming into force of the provisions of the Act and such subletting haying taken place without the written consent of the petitioner, the respondents have rendered themselves liable to be evicted under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act and the appellate authority was in error in holding that such a sublease would be protected by the provisions of Article 1717 of the French Code Civil even after coming into force of the Act with reference to the Pondicherry territory. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would contend that the lease in question commenced prior to the coming into force of the Act on 1-8-1969 and as per Article 1717 of the French Code Civil, the subletting by the lessee was recognised and it is only in the exercise of such a right, the first respondent had sublet the premises in favour of the 2nd respondent and that would not enable the petitioner to seek an order for eviction against the respondents.