Holding

The tenants sub‑let the premises to RTDC for four months, thereby falling within the meaning of sub‑letting under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and the eviction decree is upheld.

Summary

The landlord, Ram Niwas, filed an eviction suit against tenants Gurubachan Singh and another, alleging default in rent and unauthorized sub‑letting of a shop to the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (RTDC) at Rs 2100 per month for four months. The tenants contended that they had deposited rent in court under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and that the RTDC arrangement was a temporary, 20‑day use without exclusive possession, thus not amounting to sub‑letting. The trial court, the appellate court and the High Court all found that the tenants had indeed sub‑let the premises and ordered eviction. On special leave, the Supreme Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of an RTDC senior officer, and held that the tenants transferred exclusive possession for consideration, satisfying the definition of sub‑letting under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings, dismissed the appeal, granted the tenants nine months to vacate, and ordered a compensation of Rs 1500 per month, while leaving certain questions of Sections 13(3), (4), (6) and 19A open for future determination.

Issues considered

Whether the tenants sub‑let the premises to RTDC without the landlord's permission, constituting sub‑letting under Section 13(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.
Whether the deposit of rent under Section 19A of the Act creates a presumption of compliance that bars eviction.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 14E
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950s. 13(1)(e), s. 13(3), s. 13(4), s. 13(6), s. 14E, s. 19A

Subjects

evictionsub‑lettingrent defaultRajasthan Premises ActSection 19Alandlord‑tenant disputeSupreme Courtspecial leave petitionpossession

Judgment

A GURUBACHAN SINGH AND ANR.
V.

RAM NIWAS

MAY 24, 2006

B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Rent and eviction:

Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950--
s. l 3(/)(e)-Sub-letting-Tenant parting with possession of tenanted
c premises-Evidence as to receipt of rent from alleged sub-tenant-Held:
Tenant liable to eviction on the ground of sub-letting.

Landlord filed eviction suit against tenant on the ground that
tenant had, without prior permission sublet the suit shop to RTDC at
0 a rent of Rs. 2100 p.m. Tenant took defence that the shop was given
to RTDC only for a period of 20 days as RTDC's shop was under
renovation.

Trial Court decreed the suit. First Appellate Court affirmed the
finding of Trial Court on the ground of sub-letting. On appeal, High
E Court held that there are concurrent findings that the possession of the
suit shop was with RTDC to carry on business and during the period
tenant had no control whatsoever over the suit shop; that there is no
evidence to show that the tenants were continuing in possession of the
suit shop during that period and that the use of the said shop for a
F period of four months by RTDC on payment of Rs.2100/- as rent,
amounts to subletting within the meaning of clause (e) of sub-section (1)
of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1950. Aggrieved tenant filed the present appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: t. The sub-letting has been clearly establjshed by the
evidence of the Senior Office Assistant in RTDC. It is his evidence that
RTDC had taken the ciisputed shop on rent from 1t.4.1991 on temporary
basis because in the shop in front of KEM, the repair work was going
on. He further stated that RTDC remained in possession for four months
H
966
GURUBACHAN SINGH v. RAM NIW AS [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 967

on payment of rent of Rs.2100/- p.m. of the disputed shop from 11.4.1991 A
to 15.8.1991. In the cross-examination nothing has been elicited to
discredit his testimony and to disprove their case with regard to subletting
and the receipt of the rent. There is thus clear evidence as to the subletting
and also the receipt of the rent by the tenant from the sub-lessee. For the
foregoing reasons, there is no warrant to interfere with the concurrent
findings of the three courts.1971-A-C, 974-A-B)
B

Delhi stationers and Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, (1990) 2 SCC 331;
Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata, [1996] l SCC 25 - held inapplicable.

Gappulal v. Shriji Dwarkadheeshji, AIR (1969) SC 1291; Jagdish C
Prasad v. Angoori Devi, 11984) 2 SCC 590; Shalimar Tar Products Ltd.
v. H.C. Sharma, [1988) l SCC 70; Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati Chakraborty,
(1987) 4 sec 161 - referred to.

3. The tenants are in occupation of the shop in question from the
year 1970. The tenants have also deposited the rent in the Court as D
ordered by this Court. Considering the long occupation of the premises
in question, nine months' time is granted to the tenants to vacate the
premises. The tenants shall now pay a sum of Rs.1500/- not by way of
rent but by way of compensation for use and occupation, without any
default. 1974-D, E] E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 3536 of
2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.2003 of the High Court of
Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. C.S.A. No. 234/1998. F
Sushi! Kumar Jain and Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs., for the Appellants.

K.S. Bhatti, Pawan and Rupesh Ranjan, Advs., for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : The unsuccessful tenants are the
Appellants before us in this appeal. The Respondent is the landlord. The
premises in question is situated at Station Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan on a
monthly rent of Rs. 300. H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the tenants on the ....
grounds of default in payment of rent and for change of user and subletting.
It was alleged that the tenants committed default in payment of rent for more
than six months. It has further been averred that the tenants have subtet the
premises to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (in short "RIDC")
for running a Beer shop at a rent of Rs. 2100/- per month without taking
B prior permission of the landlord.

The Appellants filed written statement denying the allegations made in
the plaint. The Appellants contended that they had not committed any default
in payment of rent and the same has been deposited in the Court. It was stated
C that the Respondent-Landlord refused to accept the rent. The same was sent
by money order which was also not accepted. Being left with no other choice,
the tenants deposited the said rent in Court under Section 19A of the
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (in short "the
Act"). It has also been specifically stated that the premises in question was
D given to RTDC only for a period of20 days as the RTDC'S shop was under
construction and renovation.

During the pendency of the Suit rent came to be determined under the
provisions of Section 13(3) of the Act. The counsel for the Respondent-
Landlord a:dmitted the deposit of rent from 1.4.1991 to 31.12.1994. i.e. for
E a period of 32 months at the rate of Rs. 300 per month under Section 19A
of the Act. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no dispute regarding deposit
of the rent in the Court.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the landlord on the ground
F of default in payment of rent and subletting. The landlord did not press the
ground of change of user. The tenants aggrieved by the above order of the
Trial Court, filed an Appeal before the Additional District Judge in Civil
Appeal No. 115/1997. The Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and
observed that the deposit made under Section 19A of the Act was not a valid
deposit. The Appellate Court also affirmed the finding of the Trial Court on
G the ground of subletting.

Being aggrieved by the order of the First Appellate Court, the tenants
filed a Second Appeal before the High Court being S.B. Civil Second Appeal
No. 234/1998. The High Court admitted the Appeal and framed the necessary
H substantial questions of law. The High Court by its Judgment dated
GURUBACHAN SINGH v. RAM NIWAS [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 969

. ,. 26.8.2003 dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the tenants. Being aggrieved, A
the tenants have filed the above Appeal before this Court by way of Special
Leave. Notice was ordered on the Special Leave Petition on 21.11.2003 and
interim stay of the operation ofthe High Court's order was also granted on
the same date. The interim order was also continued on 26.4.2004 pending
further orders subject to the condition that the arrears of rent shall be
deposited to the credit of the proceedings before the trial Court within six B
weeks from that date. On 6.7.2004, leave was granted and the stay was
ordered to continue. At the request of both the parties, this Court passed an
order on 20th March, 2006 and posted the Appeal for hearing finally during
the summer vacation.

We have heard Mr. Sushi! Kumar Jain, the learned counsel for the
c
Appellants-tenants and Mr. K.S. Bhati, the learned counsel forthe Respondent-
Landlord. Mr. Jain todk us through the entire pleadings and the orders passed
by all the three courts. So far as the eviction on the ground~ of deposit of
rent in the Court is concerned, Mr. Jain submitted that when the tenants had
deposited the rent by resorting to the provisions of Section l 9A of the Act D
after permission of the Court, there is presumption of compliance of the
provisions of Section 19A of the Act and, therefore, the Courts below were
not justified in holding that the deposit under Section l 9A of the Act was
not legal as the tenants did not follow the proceedings of money order.
According to Mr. Jain once the rent has been deposited in Court after due
permission of the Court, there is presumption of compliance under Section
E
l 14E of the Evidence Act. He further contends that the present case is not
a case of rent default and that the deposit of rent in the Court under Section
19A of the Act and the admission of the Landlord for determination of the
rent under Section 13(3) of the Act that the amount of rent had already been
deposited in the Court from 1.4.1991 to 31.12.1994 at the rate of Rs. 300 F
per month, the Appellants are entitled for the benefit of Section 13 sub-
clauses (3), (4) and (6) of the Act. He further submitted that under the
provisions of Section 13 of the Act, a decree for eviction cannot be passed
against the tenants when they were always ready and willing to pay rent and
have deposited the rent in the Court prior to the filing of the suit.
G
Insofar as the eviction on the ground of subletting is concerned, Mr.
Jain submitted that the tenants had sublet the premises to the RTDC when
the premises )lad been given only for a period of 20 days to accommodate
them as their shop was under reconstruction and renovation and, therefore,
when the tenants had not sublet the premises to the RTDC and permitted H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A them to have exclusive possession of the shop, there cannot be any
subletting. Mr. K.S. Bhati, the learned counsel appearing for the landlord
submitted that the contentions put forward by Mr. Jain have absolutely no
merit and that all the three courts have concurrently found that the tenants
have willfully defaulted in the payment of rent and also sublet the premises,
though temporarily, for a period of four months and collected a sum of Rs.
B 2100/- per month. Mr. Bhati also invited our attention to the categorie
findings rendered by the High Court.

The provisions of clause (e) of sub-section (I) of Section 13 of the Act
read as under :
c
13. Eviction of tenants, - (I) Notwithstanding anything contained
in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree or make any
order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or
otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to
pay rent therefor to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it
D is satisfied.

(a) that the tenant has assigned, sub-let or otherwise parted with
the possession of. the whole or any part of the premises without the
permission of the landlord; or"
E
The High Court on a consideration of the evidence tendered by the parties
herein came to the conclusion that the tenant had clearly sublet the three
shops to RTDC for a period of four months and received Rs. 2100 as rent
from RTDC The Court also held that there are concurrent findings that the
possession of the suit shop was with RTDC to carry on the business of Beer
F
shop and during that period tenants had no control whatsoever over the suit
shop. It was also further held that there is no evidence to show that the tenants
were continuing in possession of the suit shop during that period. Therefore,
the High Court has concluded that the use of the said shop for a period of
four months by RTDC on payment of Rs. 2100/- as rent, certainly amounts
G to subletting within the meaning of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section
13 of the Act.

Section 13 sub-clause (I), (e) deals with subletting, The said Section
says that if the tenant has assigned, sub-let or otherwise partied with the
H possession of, the wholly or any part of the pn:mises without the permission
GURUBACHAN SINGH v. RAM NIWAS [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 971

of the landlord, the tenant is liable to be evidence from the premises. In the A
instant case it has been clearly established by the evidence of the Senior
Officer Assistant in RTDC from 1982. It is his evidence that RTDC had taken
the disputed shop on rent from 11.4.1991 on temporary basis because in the
shop in front of KEM, the repair work was going on. He further stated that
<.
RTDC remained in possession for four months on payment of rent.
B
He further deposed that RTDC had given the rent of Rs. 2100/- per
month of the disputed shop from 11.4.1991to15.8.1991 and the rent was
paid to Gurbachan Singh, the tenant. In the cross-examination nothing has
been elicited to discredit his testimony and to disprove their case with regard
to subletting and the. receipt of the rent. C
The learned counsel for the tenants has cited Delhi Stationers and
Printers v. Rajendra Kumar, (1990] 2 SCC 331. This is also a case of
subletting. In this case, this Court had held that mere user of the tenant-
appellant's kitchen and latrine by the co-tenant who was residing in the D
portion let out to him by the respondent-landlord cannot mean that the
appellant had transferred the exclusive right to enjoy the kitchen and latrine
and had parted with the legal possession of the said part of the premises in
favour of the co-tenant. This judgment, in our opinion, has no application
to the case on hand. In the above case, the tenant has permitted to use the
kitchen and latrine on a temporary basis. He has not transferred the exclusive E
right to enjoy the kitchen and latrine. He had also not parted with the legal
possession of the part of the premises in his possession and collected any
amount by way of rent. This case, therefore, is distinguishable on facts and
law.
F
Mr. Jain has also cited the case of Dev Kumar v. Swaran Lata, [1996]
I SCC 25 at Page 30 (Pragraph 9), which reads thus :

"9. Coming to the second question the expression 'sub-letting'
has not been defined in the Act. The conclusion on the question of
sub-letting is a conclusion on a question of law derived from the G
findings on the materials on record as to the transfer of exclusive
possession and as to the said transfer of possession being for
consideration. As to what is the true meaning of the. expression
"sub-letting", this Court considered the same in the case of Jagdish
Prasad v. Angoori Devi, [I 984] sec 590 in an eviction proceeding H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act. The Court held that merely from the presence of the
person other than the tenant in the shop, sub-letting cannot be
presumed and as long as control over the premises is kept by the
tenant and the business run in the premises is of the tenant, sub-
letting flowing from the presence of the person other than the tenant
B in !\le shop cannot be assumed. It was further held that in an
application for eviction of a tenant from a shop which is based on
the allegations that the premises has been sub-let, the allegation has
to be proved. The question of sub-letting was considered by this
Court in the case of Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. HC. Sharma,
c [ 1988] l SCC 70 and it was held that in order to construe sub-letting
there must be parting of legal possession of the lessee and parting
of legal possession means "possession with the right to include and
also right to exclude others".

It is seen from the above paragraph that subletting cannot be presumed as
D long as control over the premises is kept by the tenant and the business run
in the premises is of the tenant. This Judgment also says that in an application
for eviction of a tenant from a shop which is based on the allegations that
the premises has been sublet, the allegation has to be proved. As already
noted in the instant case, the allegation of subletting has been clearly
established by the evidence of the employee of the RTDC and also by
E
payment of rent. This Judgment is also of no assistance to the Appellants.

Reliance has also been placed on the case of Gappulal v. Shriji
Dwarkadheeshji, AIR (1969) SC 1291. This case also deals with the
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act (17of1950). Section
F 13( I)(e) was also considered by this Court in the said Judgment. This
Judgment held that in the event of subletting without permission of landlord,
eviction is the only proper remedy and that the subletting of the premises
whether before or after the commencement of the Act, is immaterial. If the
tenant has sublet the premises without the permission of the landlord either
before or after the coming into the force of the Act, he is not protected from
G eviction under Section 13(J)(e) of the Act and it matters not that he bad right
to sublet the premises under Section I 08(j) of the Transfer of Property Act.
In this case also, the Landlord has established the ground of eviction under
Section 13( I)( e) with regard to the two shops on the northern side of the
staircase of the temple. This Court on a consideration of the Section 13(1 )(e)
H of the Act and of the evidence came to the conclusion that the landlord is

•
GURUBACHAN SINGH v. RAM NIWAS [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 973
•. entitled to a decree for ejectment of the tenant from the two shops. This Court A
also held that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in a
Second Appeal.

In the case ofJagdish Prasad v. Angoori Devi, [1984] 2 SCC 590, this
Court has held as under :
B
"( 1) It is only when a person other than the tenant sits in the shop
in exercise of his own right that the presumption of subletting can
arise. As long as control over the premises is kept by the tenant and
the business run in the premises is of the tenant, subletting flowing
from the presence of a person other than the tenant in the shop c
cannot be assumed. The Act does not require the Court to assume
a subtenancy merely from the fact of presence of an outsider. The
allegation that the premises has been sublet to a person has to be
proved as a fact by the landlord and merely on the basis of a
photograph showing presence of that person or his son within the
premises, subletting cannot be presumed."
D

Reliance has also been placed on the case of Shalimar Tar Products
Ltd. v. HC. Sharma, (1988] l SCC 70. This is also a case of subletting. In
this case, this Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 14(1) proviso
(b) and 16(2) and (3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The question posed E
before this Court for consideration was whether there was a subletting and
whether for that written consent of landlord has been obtained. This Court
held that concurrent findings of fact on those questions of Tribunal and High
Court would normally be accepted by Supreme Court in Appeal under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This Court also held that the tenant
F
has no right to sublet a portion of the premises without written consent of
the landlord in contravention of the lease deed. Since the premises was let
out without the written permission of the landlord, this court held that the
landlord is entitled to eviction decree.

Reliance has also been placed on the case of Dipak Banerjee v. Lilabati G
Chakraborty, [ 1987] 4 SCC 161. This is yet another instance of subletting
under the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 and
Section 13(1 )(a) of the said Act. This Court has categorically held that person
alleged to be a subtenant must be shown to be in exclusive possession of
the premises over which the main tenant has no control. This Court also held H

....
974 SUPREML COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A that the ingredient to prove the tenancy or subtenancy is that the right to
occupy the premises must be in lieu of payment of some compensation or
rent. In the present case, there was clear evidence as to the subletting and
also the receipt of the rent by the tenant from the sub-lessee.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely
B no warrant to interfere with the concurrent findings of the three courts.
However, we leave open the first question argued by Mr. Jain on the
interpretation of Section 13(3), (4) and (6) to be decided in an appropriate
case and Section 19A of the Act.

c Mr. Jain in the alternative prayed for some reasonable time to vacate
the premises and handover peacefu 1 vacant possession to the landlord. It is
not in dispute that the tenants are in occupation of the shop in question from
the year 1970. The tenants have also deposited the rent in the Court as
ordered by this Court. Considering the long occupation of the premises in
question, we are of the view that a reasonable time should be given to the
D
tenants so tl:at they will be in a position to collect all the dues due to them
by third parties. Time is also to be given to enable them to find out a suitable
accommodation. We, therefore, grant nine months' time to the tenants to
vacate the premises and handover peaceful vacant possession by the end of
February, 2007. The tenants shall now pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- not by way
E of rent but by way of compensation for use and occupation without any
default from 1.6.2006 to end of February, 2007 on or before 15th of every
succeeding month. The tenants shall file and undertaking in this Court within
a period of three weeks from today. We also make it clear that the tenants
shall not sublet the premises to any other third party during this period and
F shall handover peaceful possession to the landlord on or before 1st March,
2007.

The Civil appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

The landlord is at liberty to withdraw the rent already deposited as per
G the orders of this Court without furnishing any security and if there is any
arrear of rent, the Appellants shall pay the same within four weeks from
today.

D.G. Appeal disposed of.

...