JAFER ALI Vs. CHOITRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by the landlord against the decision of the Rent Control Appellate Authority directing the respondent to vacate 3/4 of the suit premises leaving in the possession of the respondent. There is also a revision by the tenant against this order contesting the validity thereof, The tenant was in occupation of this house since 1944. The house-consists, according to the inspection of the Rent Controller, of two storeys. The ground floor has eight rooms, two bath rooms, two kitchens and two lavatories, The top floor has also similar accommodation. Both the floors have verandahs. The tenant had sublet portions of this building to two persons. In or about 1946 the landlord Balayya sold the house to the present landlord who gave a notice on 23rd September, 1947, for, vacating the premises on the ground that the tenant was subletting it without permission and that he required it for his occupation. The respondent replied that he sublet the premises with the permission of the previous landlord and that the landlord has no need to occupy this house because he has other residential houses. Subsequently a petition was filed in 1949 for ejecting the respondent, but this was dismissed on 17th November, 1951. on the ground that the rental agreement which was produced was inadmissible for want of sufficient stamp. The landlord again presented an application in 1952 which is the subject-matter of these revision petitions. Before the Rent Controller two points were urged, namely, that the sub-tenancy was invalid because under section 15 (2) it was not sublet after obtaining written permission from the landlord, and secondly, that the landlord required it for his use and occupation. The Rent Controller after inspecting the building passed orders directing the ejectment on the ground that the subletting was illegal and that the landlord required it for his use not having any other residential house of his own. In appeal the appellate authority disagreed with the view of the Controller in so far as subletting is concerned, because he was of the opinion that when the subletting was done there was no provision similar to the provision in section 15 of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease Control) Act, 1954 and that the sub-tenancy could be effected with oral permission also. There was evidence on which both the Courts came to the conclusion that oral permission was given by the landlord Balayya for the tenant to sublet. With respect to the contention that it was genuinely required by the landlord the appellate Court accepted this contention, but in the circumstances thought that 3/4 of the house alone will be sufficient for the landlord while 1/4 could be occupied by the tenant.

(2.) In these revisions the same points are again urged and it is further contended that the appellate Court cannot split up the tenancy in this way.

(3.) In so far as the contention regarding the subletting of the house is concerned, in my view, the appellate Court was right. Prior to the passing of the Hyderabad Houses (Rent, Eviction and Lease Control) Act, there was no requirement to obtain the written permission before a tenant could sublet a premises. Clause (2) of sub-section (2) of section 10 permits landlord to seek eviction of his tenant if "the tenant has after the commencement of the Hyderabad House Rent Control Order of 1353 F., or this Act without the written consent of the landlord (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire house or any portion thereof, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so". Learned advocate for the revision petitioner submits on the wording of this clause that the words 'written consent' govern both sub-tenancies after the commencement of the Hyderabad House Rent Control Order of 1353 F., or the present Act. cannot read this section as suggested above, because under the Hyderabad House Rent Control Order of 1353 F., there was no provision for written consent to be taken from the landlord before subletting. Oral consent was also sufficient. If this was the case, the tenant who was in occupation of the house and long prior to the passing of the present Act sublet the house after oral permission, and it cannot be said that the subletting should under the provisions of this Act only be after obtaining a written consent. In other words, retrospective operation cannot be given to this provision, because sub-tenancy has already validly taken place after permission had been obtained from the landlord. The provision is only confined to sub-tenancies created after the Act whether they relate to tenancies under the old Act or the new Act. There is, therefore, no substance in the submission based on the subletting of the premises. The sublease was validity given and the eviction cannot be claimed on that ground.