PRAKASHMAL JAIN Vs. BALUSAMY AND SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Despite the vehement arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am unable to see any reason to interfere, in this Civil Revision Petition under Sec. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with the concurrent eviction order passed by both the Authorities below (under Sec. 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Act, on the ground of sub-letting by the 1st petitioner, against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 herein, in R.C.O.P. No. 197 of 1986 on the file of the Rent Controller (District Munsif), Coimbatore, filed by the 1st respondent-landlord herein.

(2.) BEFORE me, there is no dispute that the 1st petitioner herein is the tenant of the building in question under the 1st respondent herein under Ex. P5 lease deed dated 2-1-1974 and that despite Exs. R1 and R2-rental receipts being in favour of "P.J. Textiles", the Appellate Authority has found as follows:- Tamil

(3.) NO doubt, Ex. R11 Partnership deed dated 29-6-1985 relating to the abovesaid Amardeep Textiles, shows that the 1st petitioner is a partner under it, while the other partner is the 2nd petitioner herein, who is the 6th respondent in the R.C.O.P. The R.C.O.P. was presented in July 1986. 4 (A). In the said circumstances, initially it was argued that in view of the fact that the 1st petitioner is a partner in Ex. R11 partnership, there is no sub-letting. But, as also pointed out by both the Authorities below, the ruling by a Division Bench of this Court in K.M. Mohammed Yusuf Zulaika Umma and others v. P.A. Abdul Khader (died) and another (AIR 1980 Madras 143 (DB) is directly against the abovesaid initial argument of learned Counsel for the petitioners. The ruling is, sub-letting need not subsist during the disposal of the eviction petition and all that is required under Sec. 10(2)(ii)(a) is that the tenant should have sub-let the premises without the written consent of the landlord, that once the said requirement is satisfied, the tenant forfeits his protection and becomes liable to be evicted and that the statute does not impose a further condition that the sub-letting must be continuing throughout the entire course of the eviction petition.