M R DEVARAJAN Vs. M PALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the landlord/ petitioner in R.C.O.P.No.3177 of 1985 on the file of the Rent Controller (14th Judge Court of Small Causes), Madras and the respondent in R.C.O.P.No.327 of 1989 on the file of the appellate authority (7th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras. THE first respondent in this revision petition is the second respondent before the Rent Controller and the second respondent herein is the first respondent before the Rent Controller. THE revision petitioner is the landlord; the second respondent is the chief tenant and the first respondent is the alleged sub-tenant. In this order, the parties to this revision are described as the landlord, chief tenant and subtenant.

(2.) THE landlord filed the eviction petition seek eviction on two grounds namely, wilful default in payment of the rent and unauthorised sub-letting. THE chief tenant remained absent and ex parte even before the Rent Controller. THE case of the landlord is that the agreed rent is Rs.110 per month and that the chief tenant had not paid the rent wilfully for the period commencing from 1.3.1985 to 3.9.1985. As far as the sub-tenancy concerned, his case is that the privity of contract of tenancy was between him and the chief tenant and that the sub-tenant is an unauthorised sub-tenant. In other words, the case of, the landlord in this context is that, he is not a party to any written instrument enabling the chief tenant to sublet. THE eviction was opposed by the sub-tenant on the following lines:

(3.) THEREFORE looking at the entire materials placed before the courts below, it is clear that the landlord had established that the tenant committed wilful default in the payment of the rent for the period mentioned in the rent control petition and that there is an unauthorised sub-letting. The second respondent before the rent control court had not established that he came into possession of the petition premises with the written consent of the landlord and that the rent for the period complained of in the rent control petition had been tendered by the chief tenant. Even as far he is concerned, there is no material at all to hold that the rent was also tendered by him. It may be true that the sub-tenant might have been there from 1976. But that by itself in the absence of a written consent would not enable him to continue in the building. Any amount of knowledge or acquiescence will not take the place of the written consent is the law laid down by this Court in two judgments of this Court and they are as follows: 1991 L.W. 231; (1989)1 M.L.J. 438. In view of the categorical pronouncement of law laid down by this Court in the two judgments referred to above, I have no hesitation to hold that though, the sub-tenant might have been there since 1976, yet it cannot cloth him with any right as a tenant to continue to occupy the building. What is the burden of proof cast upon the parties whenever a case is brought before the court for eviction on the ground of sub-letting has been succinctly laid down by a learned single Judge of this Court in his judgment reported in Malliga v. A.P.Kathja Beevi and others, (1998)1 M.L.J. 302 (Justice S.S.Subramani).