Sub-letting of any part of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction from the whole premises

Shubhani Mittal | Vivekananda Global University | 15th January 2020

K. Lubna vs. Beevi -C.A. Nos. 2442-2443 Of 2011

Facts-

Pathummakutty, the owner, let out three shop room premises, for a monthly rent of Rs.75. The ownership rights in the property were transferred in favour of the appellants in 1986 by a registered document.

The allegation in this case is that the original respondent sent rent through money orders only up to November, 1987, and stopped payment of rent thereafter.  It was also alleged that the appellants required the premises bona fide; two of the shops had been sublet by the original respondent without the consent of the appellants and the value of the suit shops had been reduced materially and permanently by the respondents.

Due to which the appellants sent legal notice to the respondent demanding surrender of possession of shop rooms and arrears of rent. Finally,the appellants filed an eviction petition before the Rent Control Centre.

The trial court decided the judgement against the appellants on all grounds except non-payment of rent while granting a decree of eviction for all the three shops

According to section 11(2)(b) and Section 11(2)(c) Rent Control Court, one month or further time is granted to the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent with interest and the cost of proceeding, but the amount thereafter was not deposited by the respondent.

The appellant preferred appealed before the appellant authority. With respect to  three rooms which were 3/471, 3/472 and 3/476, need of appellants of  Room No.3/471 was not found, in Room No.3/472 need of the appellant  was found, but no sub-letting which was stated was proved, and in respect of Room No.3/476 the subletting was proved. Thus, eviction order was granted in respect of rooms 3/472 and 3/476.

Due to the result of this order cross-revision petitions was filed by both sides before the High Court of Kerala. The result of this order was that endeavour of eviction from Room Nos.3/471 and 3/472 failed and eviction order qua Room No.3/476 on the ground of sub-letting was sustained. 

 Aggrieved by this order, the appellants preferred a Special Leave Petition, in which leave was granted.  In the proceedings of 29.8.2019, this Court recorded the real contention of the appellants as advanced by the counsel, that there was one tenancy though there were different violations in different portions of the tenancy in other if the sub-tenancy is created in part of the premises, the entitlement of eviction is in respect of the whole of the premises.

Judgement –

After going through sub-para (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 11,thw act suggests that cause arises upon the tenant transferring his rights under a lease and sub-lets the entire building, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. According to the  proviso, the landlord should have sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the contravention of the said condition of the lease and upon the tenant failing to terminate the transfer or the sub-lease, within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the notice, an application for eviction could be made by the landlord. Thus,  respondents were given six (6) months’ time to vacate the premises and was held by the bench that, sub-letting of any part of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction from the whole premises, if one tenancy is created it would not be appropriate to pass eviction order only in respect of a part thereof, and not the whole.