PETROLEUM WORKERS Vs. A MOHAMED AND CO MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition arises out of proceedings before the House Rent Controller, Madras. The respondent-landlord filed an application under section 10 of Act XVIII of 1960, for eviction of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that the petitioner had sub-let the premises to various other unions who committed nuisance acts of waste using the building for purposes other than that for which it was leased, and also on the ground that the landlord required the portion bona fide for his own use and occupation as additional accommodation. The petitioner is the Petroleum Workers" Union, represented by the General Secretary. According to the respondent-landlord, contrary to the terms of the tenancy, the petitioner-union used to allow its sister-unions to conduct their meetings, that such meetings were noisy and stonmy causing nuisance to the occupiers of the other portions of the premises, and that they had sub-let the premises to the other unions collecting rents from them. The other ground alleged by the landlord was that the portion in the occupation of the petitioner was required for additional accommodation for the various purposes of the business since the building which they till then occupied had become dilapidated and had to be pulled down.

(2.) THE petitioner herein resisted the petition, on the ground that the original tenancy was in the name of Standard Vacuum Employees" Union and after amalgamation with the Caltex Employees Union they were known as the Petroleum Workers Union, that the respondent herein was aware of the several changes and that the landlord was also aware that the tenancy was taken nominally in the name of the Standard Vacuum Employees" Union while in fact it was to cover various other unions which had their registered office at the premises THE tenant also alleged that they had a right to conduct the meetings as part of the tenancy, that the meetings were conducted with a sense of decorum and discipline and that it was incorrect to say that there was nuisance or act of waste. Finally the petitioner alleged that the premises occupied by them would be totally unsuited for the occupation of the petitioner. On these pleadings the parties went to trial before the House Rent Controller, Madras.

(3.) CONSIDERING the various covenants, Romer, J., observed at page 383 thus: "A covenant against assigning the demised premises, and a covenant against parting with the possession of the demised premises are therefore three distinct covenants, though all belonging to the same class, and if there be any other method of disposing of the demised premises that would not amount to an assignment, under-letting or parting with possession......In the same way, a covenant against sharing the possession is another distinct covenant, for, as already pointed out, a covenant against parting with possession of the demised premises is not broken by sharing the possession with another."