M. RODGERS Vs. M. PRAKASH RAO NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 25 of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act by a tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted at the instance of the landlord in pursuance of an order in H.R.A. No. 708 of 1966 filed by the landlord against the dismissal of his application for eviction of the tenant by the learned Rent Controller. The eviction was sought for on two grounds, wilful default in payment of rent and subletting. The Rent Controller found against the landlord on both the grounds. But the learned appellate Judge has taken a different view on both the grounds. As any one of the grounds is sufficient to justify the order of eviction, I shall confine myself to the grounds regarding subletting. Admittedly, the building is a business premises. The tenant has got his machinery there. He was running some journals previously and now he has stopped running them. There is one Ambika Litho Press there now which is being run by one Narayanan, who was previously the petitioner's manager. Admittedly also the petitioner has no share in the business and the Ambica Litho Press is the lessee of the machinery belonging to the petitioner. Now the machinery cannot be run unless it is placed in the premises where it is situate. So, the lessee of the machinery also gets the advantage of the use of the business premises also. Therefore, the lease amount which the lessor receives should contain in it an element of rent for the building which is used to house the machinery as well as the rent for the use of the machinery. This is mere commonsense. It is unbelievable that the lessor would take rent for the use of the machinery alone and not take any rent for the use of the business premises and agree to pay the rent himself. He should have stipulated for a lease amount which includes both the elements. It is not an answer under these circumstances against the charge of subletting to say that the lessor does not take anything separately from the lessee by way of rent for the building itself or that he himself is paying the rent to the landlord and the sub -lessee is not paying the rent to the landlord. I am not satisfied that the decision relied upon by the petitioner and reported in Subbanna Sastry v. Abdulla (1959) 2 M.L.J. 23 can help the petitioner. On the other hand the decision in Venkatarama Iyer v. Renters Ltd. (1951) 2 M.L.J. 57, is directly against the petitioner.

(2.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as one without merits. Time for vacating three months.