THE CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPORATION LTD., & ANR. v. HAPPY HOMES (P) LTD.
Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 20; 1967 INSC 241
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: J.C. SHAH , S.M. SIKRI, J.M. SHELAT
Judgment date:
Case summary
1967 INSC 241. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1967-10-23. THE CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPORATION LTD., & ANR. v. HAPPY HOMES (P) LTD. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1968] 2 S. C. R. .. THE CALCUTIA CREDIT CORPORATION LTD. , & A:NR. I'. HAPPY HOMES (P) LTD. October 23, 1967 [J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI A:'-ID ]. M. SHELAT, JJ. ) '1't•11 ssion given up. We. H Benf! a/ Pre111ises Rent ('ontro/ (Tt•111pnrary Prov1\ions) Act 17 ·Of 1950, . r. r. 2( 11 ), 12 and 11-1/ exprcs -;ession and on \fay 7, 19)4 ~uhle1 a part of the premises to the respondent. 'fhc landlord thereafter instituted 3. suit for ~jcc11nent tigainst AB v. ·hich v. ·as settled on ~1arch :! 8, 1955 by a consent decree v. ·hereupon AB handt! d over possc-;.. ,ion to the landlord of the por· tion of the premises in their ov. n occup e mav he. l)r of v. ·hich 1hc dur;1tion is shorler than the Juralion con- 1cmpl:1tc~I by s. 106. may srill be accrptcd hy the party served \\·i1h the nolic. :c; and if ! hat p~rty acccpis anJ Jct ) Ltd. -respondent in this appeal.
The landlord then instituted a suit against Allen Bcrrv cla;m-ing a decree in ejectment in respect of the demised premises and for mesne profits and other reliefs. This suit was scttkd on M;irch 28, 1955, and a consent decree was passed. The impor-tant recitals in lhc decree were that ( I ) Allen Berry had sUJ" rendered the tenancy hy nntice dated August 12, 195'. I: ! 2) that \hey had hander over possession of the portion of the prcrni,cs in their oci:upation to the landlord: (3) that the landlord will be at liherty either to retain the sub-tenant or to eject him; ;ind ( 4) that the sub-tenancy had heen created without the >:no-. '- Jcdge and consent of the landlord. The landlord then sued Messrs H to sub-section (1 ) of. section 12. · . . . . • • It follows that in the case of sub-letting by a tenant of the first degree no consent of the. landlord to sub-lettiog is required as a condition precedent for acquisi- (1) (1965] 3 S. C. R. 329.
tion by the suh-lessee of the tenant's right but in the case of sub-letting by a tenant inferior to tpe tenant of the first degree the consent of the landlord an'il also of the tenant of the superior degree above him to the sub-letting is necessary if the sub-lessee is to acquire the rights of the tenant contemplated bys. 13(2). " But the Court decided in Indra Kumar Ka. -11ani's case(') that a covenant in the lease prohibiting a tenant from sub-ietting, in respect of premises governed by the Wcsi Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provi,ions) Act 17 of 1950 docs not pr;:-vent the sub-tenant under a contracrual tenant from sct:ing up the claim that he has hccome entitled under s. 13(2) of the Act to the rights 0f the tenant in respect of the premises or part thereof sub-let to him. Th. e case is nOl an authority for the proposition that a tenant whose tenancy is determined, and who continues to remain in occupation merely by virtue of the protection conferred upon .
him by the statute is entitled to sub-let. Counsel then contended that the Legislature has, notwithstanding the disabilities of the statutory tenant, by express en-actment conferred upon him the privilege of inducting into the premises held by him a sub-tenant, who would be entitled to <:)aim the rights of a contractual tenant against the landlord in • the events mentioned in the proviso to s. 12( I) (c) ands. 13(2). Relying upon the definition of tenant in s. 2 ( n ) of the Act, counsel argued that in s. 12 the expression "tenant" includes a statutory tenant as well as a· 'contractual tenant, and that if a sub-tenant in respect of a part of the premises is protected by the . express provision contained in the pfoviSo to s. 12(l}(c), a sub-teriant of the entire oremises whether the tenant is a contractual tenant or a statutory tenant is entitled to protection of the Act. According to counsel ss.
12 ( 1 ) ( c) proviso and 13 (2) are parts of a single scheme, and the expression 'tenant' in both the sections includes a statutory tenant, and sub-teiiants inducted .. by the statutory tenants in the premises are entitled to the protection of the Act. Reliance in support of this contention was placed upon a Full Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court 2 in Krishna Prasad Bose v. Smt. Sarajuba/a Dassi and Anr. ( ) wherein it was held that a tenant under the Act includes an ex-tenant, that is, a tenant whose contractual tenancy has come 10 an end, but who is still in possession (occupation)-actual or constructivc--of ;he premises; and such a tenant who continues in possession by virtue of protection against eviction under the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, II 1950, is entitled to sub-let the premises and the sub-tenant may claim. the benefit and protection of s. 13(2). ' (I) p965] 3 S. C. R J~9. (2) A. J. R. 1961 Cel ~05. CALCUTTA CREDIT CORP. V.
• HAPPY HOMES (Shah, J. ) 31 We are unable to agree with the contention rais~d by counsel for the respondent. In our view, since' a statutory tenant has merely a personal right to protect his possession, and has no estate or interest in the premises occupied by him, he cannot con-vey an estate or interest which he does not possess. A statutory tenant by parting with possession forieits the protection of th~ Act, and unless the statute expressly 'provides or clearly implies otherwise, the person inducted ny him cannot claim the protection of the Act. In our judgment, cl. (c) of s. 12(1) applies only to a case in which the tenant has an interest in the estate which he could sub-let. Similarly, s. 13 contemplates a case iu which a contractual tenant has sub-let the premises. If it be held that the expression 'tenant' in s. 13 (2) and in cl. ( c) of s.
12(1) includes a statutory tenant, ati es~ate or an interest in the demised premises would be conferred by him upon a tram-feree which the tenant himself does not possess, and that a tenant who has acted contrary to the provisions of els. (m), (o) & (p) of s. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, or has used the property for immoral or illegal purposes, or has committed acts cf negligence and default which may materially deteriorate the condition of the premises, or has otherwise been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance. to occupiers of adjoin-ing or neighbouring premises including the landlord; or has failed to pay rent exceeding two months and has thereoy incurred liabi-lity to forfeit the protection of the statute granted to him by s. 12 ( 1) and wb,ose right has been forfeited by due notices, may still sub-let the premises and the sub-lessee. would then be entitled to claim the right under s. 13(2) on the detennmation of the tenancy of the tenant.
· Considered in the light of the scheme and object of the Act. the expression "tenant" in cl. (c) of s. 12(1) or ins. 13(2. ) must, ·in our judgment, mean a contractual tenant alone and not a statutory tenant. The definition in s. 2 ( 11) of the expression "tenant" includes a statutory tenant. But the definition does not apply if there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. A statutory tenant has no interest or estate in the premises occupied oy him, and we are unable to hold that the Legislatme· without 'n1al<ing an express provision to that effect intended to invest him with power to induct into the premises in his occupation a person who would be entitled to claim the right and interest of a contractual tenant. If the view which has appealed to the High Court of Calcutta be accepted, a statutory tenant whose right or occupation is determined by a notice to quit, because of conduc'. which entails forfeiture of the protection of .
the Act, may induct a sub-tenant so as to defeat the claim of the landlord, and pre-sumably a tenant sued in ejectment may also exercise that privilege, for the right if granted would enure till a decr~e in eject- 32 SUPREME CQURT REPORTS [1968] 2 S. C. R. A mcnt is passed. The Legislature has n~ m. ade any such exprea provision, and no provision to _! hat effect whfch makes the right of the landlord conferred by the Act to obtain a decree in cject-mcnt against his tenant wholly illusory may be implied. The appeal is therefore allowed l! Ild the decree passed by the trial Court-restored with the modification that mesne profits B will be payable from September l, 1953 at tlie rate of Rs. 495/-pcr month till delivery of possession. The landlords will be eu-titlcd to their costs in this Court and before the Division Bench of the High Court. R. K. P. S. A ppca/ a/lowed.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.