CURRENT CIRCULATING LIBRARY, BY ITS PROPRIETOR LAZARUS Vs. RAJA VELUGOTI SARVAGNA KUMARA KRISHNA YACHENDRA BAHADUR VARU, RAJA OF VENKATAGIRI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this revision petition is the tenant of a portion of premises No. 187, Mount Road, Madras, which is a building owned by the Raja of Venkatagiri, the respondent. Some time in February, 1945, the premises now in question were let out to the petitioner by Messrs. Gokuldoss Jumnadoss & Co., who were the equitable mortgagees of some items of properties including the suit premises under a mortgage granted by the Raja of Venkatagiri. The admitted facts are that, in February, 1945, the petitioner obtained a lease of these premises from the equitable mortgagees under the terms mentioned in Exhibit R -I. The equitable mortgage was redeemed in 1946 but the petitioner was not disturbed in possession. He attorned to the owner, the Raja of Venkatagiri, who continued to collect the rent from the petitioner, treating him as his tenant. Some time in 1955, the Raja of Venkatagiri filed an application before the Rent Controller, Madras, for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that he had sub let a portion of the premises without the consent of the landlord. The tenant disputed both the factum of sub -letting and the competency of the landlord to question the sub -letting.

(2.) THE Rent Controller found that a portion of the premises was sub -let in 1954 But, since Exhibit R -I, the letter executed by the equitable mortgagees at the time when the petitioner was admitted to possession as a tenant, contained a permission to sub -let the premises, he held that the sub -letting was not in violation of the provision in Section 7(2)(ii)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,, 1949. Consequently, he dismissed the application for eviction. In support of the latter position taken up by him, he relied on a Bench decision of this Court in Somasundara Mudaliar v. Madras Provincial Co -operative Marketing Society, Ltd., (1950) 1 M.L.J. 655.

(3.) THOUGH the learned Counsel for the petitioner disputed the fact of sub -letting, it is not open for a Court of revision to go into a question of fact, especially, where both the lower Courts have concurrently found that the sub -letting was true, though they have differed about the date. The only question open for consideration in this proceeding is whether the alleged sub -letting is hit by Section 7(2)(ii)(a) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The appellate authority took the view that, though Exhibit R -I, dated 2nd February, 1945, was genuine and it gave a. general permission to the tenant to sub -let, this would not avail to validate the subletting made in 1951, because, the Bench decision above referred to required, according to his interpretation of that decision, the written consent of the landlord at the time when the sub -letting was made. He specifically held that Exhibit R -I would not constitute such written consent, because, on the date when the sub -letting was made, Gokuldoss Jumnadoss and Go. were not the landlords. The correctness of that view was canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.