Bombay High Court Upholds Eviction Order: Unlawful Subletting of Premises Deemed Ground for Eviction

Court’s Decision:

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition challenging the eviction decree passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court. The High Court affirmed that the eviction was justified on the ground of unlawful subletting. It upheld the Appellate Court’s finding that the suit premises were sublet to unauthorized occupants for an extended period and that the premises were not used in accordance with the alleged tenancy arrangement with a Club.

Facts of the Case:

The respondents (original plaintiffs) filed a suit against the petitioner (original defendant) for recovery of possession of the suit premises, which comprised the entire third-floor premises of the house known as ‘Minoo Mansion’ in Mumbai. The plaintiffs argued that the premises were unlawfully sublet or transferred to third parties, who were in exclusive possession and use of the property. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had acquired suitable alternate accommodation and sought possession based on the ground of bona fide requirement.

The petitioner, in defense, contended that the suit premises were rented for a workingmen’s residential club called ‘St. Aleixo Club of Calangute,’ and not for personal use. The petitioner claimed that the premises were never meant to be used as a residence for the defendant or his family and that the rent was always paid by the Club. During the pendency of the suit, the ownership of the premises changed hands, and the subsequent purchaser was joined as a co-plaintiff.

Issues:

The primary issue was whether the decree of eviction based on unlawful subletting could be sustained. The petitioner challenged the Appellate Court’s finding on subletting, while the respondents sought eviction on the grounds of unlawful subletting, acquisition of alternate accommodation, and bona fide requirement.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioner argued that the tenancy was created for the use of a residential club and not for the defendant personally. The premises were allegedly used by members of the Club since its inception.
2. It was claimed that the suit premises were not sublet but rather occupied by members of the Club, for which the rent was paid from the Club’s funds.
3. The petitioner contended that there was sufficient evidence, including the Club’s membership registers and rent receipts, to show that the premises were intended for the Club’s use.
4. The petitioner argued that the Appellate Court failed to correctly identify the true tenant of the premises, which led to a wrongful finding of unlawful subletting.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The respondents argued that the petitioner admitted in the written statement that his father was inducted as a tenant in his individual capacity, which contradicts the defense that the premises were rented for a Club.
2. The respondents highlighted that certain individuals had occupied the premises as if it were their personal residence for several years, which indicated unlawful subletting.
3. The respondents submitted that the petitioner’s evidence failed to establish that the premises were used as a club and not for residential purposes.

Analysis of the Law:

The High Court considered the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act and relevant case law on unlawful subletting. The court emphasized that the burden of proving that the premises were not sublet unlawfully rested on the petitioner. It examined the evidence, including the membership registers, rent receipts, and testimonies of witnesses, to ascertain whether the subletting defense was credible.

Precedent Analysis:

The petitioner relied on the Division Bench judgment in M.J. Talegaonkar v. Tejoomal Lakhmichand Narang to argue that a Club could be treated as a lawful tenant. However, the High Court distinguished this case, noting that the rent receipts in the current matter were not issued in the name of the Club, and thus, the factual situation differed significantly.

Court’s Reasoning:

The High Court observed that the petitioner’s contradictory statements and admissions in the written statement undermined the defense. Despite claiming that the premises were for Club use, the petitioner admitted that his father was the original tenant and that he succeeded the tenancy. The court found that the evidence indicated that certain individuals had resided in the suit premises for extended periods, creating proofs of residence such as voter IDs and gas connections, which signaled permanent occupation rather than temporary club use.

The court further noted that if the premises were genuinely for Club use, different members would have occupied the property periodically, rather than the same individuals for decades. Therefore, the High Court upheld the finding of unauthorized subletting and dismissed the petition.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the Appellate Court’s decree of eviction on the ground of unlawful subletting. The interim stay on the eviction decree was extended for eight weeks to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate relief.

Implications:

This judgment reinforces that unauthorized subletting of rented premises can result in an eviction decree even when there are claims of the property being used for a lawful purpose, such as a club. It underscores the necessity for tenants to substantiate their claims with consistent and concrete evidence. Furthermore, the judgment clarifies that prolonged occupation by the same individuals can amount to subletting if it deviates from the intended purpose of the tenancy.

Also Read – Orissa High Court Declares Repeated Cognizance in Protest Petition as “Illegal and Unconstitutional” – Cognizance Cannot Be Taken Twice on Same Offence After Committal to the Sessions Court