V G GAJENDRAGADKAR Vs. VIJAI KUMARI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Addl. Rent Controller in the City of Hyderabad ordered M/s Cooper. Engineering Limited (the tenant) to veeate Door Nos. 6-3-635 and 637 at Rajahavan Road, at the instance of land-lady, Vijay Kumari Gupta. The order was made, on the ground, the tenant had let-out 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 sub-tenant in tne 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 collution 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 receive the amount. Latter 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 int he premit ses. If he js a sub-tenant, it was averred, the sub-tenancy was with the consent of the land-lady. The Ren- 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 o) his case, wherein, orders of eviction were held void. In Banadursingh vs. Muni Subrat Dass(1); 1969 (2) SCR., 432 the other in, Ferozi Lal Jain vs Manmal And another (2), 1970 (1)SC 794 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 landlady in an eviction proceedings to implead a sub-tenant. An order of eviction against a tenant binds a subtenant, 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. Raghavamahi (Private) LTD and another (3) AIR 1964 SC 1889. 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, succh a position in law, "may act harshly on the sublessee", 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-tenant 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 vs. Vedagiri Padmavathamma and others (4) 1977 (1) A P.L.J., 297-was next relied on by the land-lady. In that case, tenancy was transferred and was assigned, pending eviction proceedings The transferee objected execution of decree on the ground, he cannot be thrown out of the premises as he is not a party to the decree. The land-lord, so argued in thet 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 ware accepted, such acceptance, "practically" defeat the objects of the Act "conceived in the interest of the tenant". Any construction or interpretation in accepting the contentions "practically" defeat the objects of the Act and "should not be indulged in". It was observed, whether the ttansfer occurred before the pendency of the eviction proceedings or later (even after the decree is passed), the transferee is 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 Jagat Enterprises vs. Anup Kumar Daw and others (AIR 1977 Calcutta. 209), 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.