GAJENDARGADKAR Vs. VIJAYA KUMARI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Addl. Rent Controller in the City of Hyderabad ordered M/s. Cooper Engineering Limited (the tenant) to vacate Door Nos. 6-3-635 and 637 at Rajbhavan Road, at the instance of land-lady, Vijaya Kumari Gupta. The order was made, on the ground, the tenant had letout the premises, in contravention of the terms of tenancy, to V.G. Gajendragadkar (the sub-tenant) and the tenant ceased to occupy the premises from November 1,1979. The sub-tenant made two applications to that authority. In one, execution of the decree was sought to be stayed and in the other, order was sought to be set aside. The snb-tenant in the applications averred: He was an employee of the tenant He left the service of tenant on July 15,1979; The demised premises was let-out at his instance by the land lady The order of eviction "was vitiated by collusion between land-lady and the tenant: He was the tenant and not a sub-tenant. When rent of September 1979 was sent by money order by him, she did. not recevive the amount. Later, he deposited rents upto January, 1980 in proceedings under Sec. 8 (R. C. No. 248/1980). It was his specific case, he was the tenant in the premises: If he is a sub-tenant, it was averred, the sub-tenancy was with the consent of the land-lady. The Rent Controller dismissed the two applications holding he had no locus standi to be impleaded. On appeal, the order was confirmed on the ground the tenant and the land-lady did not collude and the order of eviction binds a sub-tenant.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the sub-tenant, in this Court cited two judgments in support of his case wherein, orders of eviction were held void, in Bahadursingh v. Muni Subrat Dass the other in Ferozi Lal Jain vs. Marnnal and anoteer the decrees of eviction, in the two cases, were held void by the Supreme Court of India, having regard to the special provisions in the Special Legislation.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the land-lady covered a larger field to contend, it is not incumbent for a land-lady in an eviction proceedings to implead a sub-tenant. An order of eviction against a tenant binds a sub-tenant notwithstanding. The sub-tenant is not a party. The sub-tenant made the applications on the facts of the instant case, it is pointed out, after the decree was passed, therefore, the course opened to him is to resist the execution but he cannot be impleaded. The case in Rupchand Gupta vs. Raghavamshi (Private Ltd.) and another was cited where it was held, a sub-tenant is not a necessary party; yet, it was emphasised, the decree binds the sub-tenant. The Supreme Court held, such a position in law, "may act harshly on the sub-lessee", nevertheless, it was held it is not "improper" if a sub-tenant is not a party. The question, in the instant case, is, is it "improper" to add sub-tenant as a party? and such a question was not answered in the cited case, it may not be improper not to add sub-tenant, But when sub-tanant seeks to be a party, can it be said, it is improper to add him a party? That aspect falls for decision, in the instant case and the answer is obvious, especially, in our jurisprudence which is founded on the rule of audi alteram partem. It is "proper", he should be heard (if he seeks), before it is said, he is bound by the decree. The decision in Venkateswarlu v. Vedagiri Padmavathamma and others was next relied on by the land-lady. In that case, tenancy was transferred and was assigned, pending eviction proceedings: The transferee objected to execution of decree on the ground, he cannot be thrownout of the premises as he is not a party to the decree. The land-lord, so argued in this case the transferee, in such a contingency, can seek recourse to civil Court but cannot execute the decree. These contentions were rejected. It was held, if the contentions are accepted, such acceptance, "practically" defeats the objects of the Act "conceived in the interest of the tenant". Any construction or interpretation in accepting the contentions "practically" defeats the objects of the Act and "should not be indulged in". It was observed, whether the transfer occurred before the pendency of the eviction proceedings or later (even after the decree is passed), the transferee it bound by the decree. The argument that the applications, in the instant case, are to be thrown out as they are lodged after the passing of eviction order, therefore, has no merit, whatever. In Jagut Enterprises vs. Anup Kumar Daw and others it was held, it is not necessary, a sub-tenant to be impleaded as a party. This conclusion was supported on the reasoning, ''The sub-lessee is entitled to take steps to resist the decree on the above grounds as may be available to him". The view in this case, does not answer the criticism that in subsequent proceedings, if a sub-tenant can resist the execution, what reason prevents the sub-tenant to be impleaded before execution? Therefore, this contention also fails.