P JOHN CHANDY AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JOHN P THOMAS
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-95
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
April 29,2002
P.JOHN CHANDY AND COMPANY PRIVATE
Appellant
VERSUS
JOHN P.THOMAS
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
HIRALAL KAPUR VS. PRABHU CHOUDHURY [REFERRED]RAM SARAN VS. PYARE LAL [REFERRED]
UBAIBA VS. DAMODARAN [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
PRABHAKAR GONES PRABHU NAVELKAR VS. SARADCHANDRA SURIA PRABHU NAVELKAR [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-93] [REFERRED TO]DCM LIMITED VS. JASSA RAM AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
M V GANESH VS. P V VARGHESE [LAWS(KER)-2004-11-89] [REFERRED]
DRS LOGISTICS P LTD VS. DRS DILIP ROADLINES PVT LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-202] [REFERRED TO]
SUHAS RATNAKAR MOREY VS. DHANRAJ TULSHIRAM KHAPARDE [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-302] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH RAI VS. CHAIRMAN S K G BANK [LAWS(ALL)-2005-2-188] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ BHAN VS. VIITH A D J COURT NO 8 MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
GODREJ INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. RITU BHARGAVA [LAWS(NCD)-2014-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. S.F. ENGINEER VS. METAL BOX INDIA LTD. [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-53] [REFERRED TO]
USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD VS. UMESH CHANDRA AGARWAL AND ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-399] [REFERRED]
VIALAPARAMBIL GOPI VS. CHUNDAMVEETTIL PAZHAYA OTTAYIL MOHD. BASHEER [LAWS(KER)-2003-8-85] [REFERRED TO]
M V GANESH VS. P V VARGHESE [LAWS(KER)-2004-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
T V SADASIVAN CHETTIAR VS. RAJENDRAN [LAWS(KER)-2005-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMED SAGEER VS. PRAKASH THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2005-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
MURALEEDHARAN NAIR VS. VINAYAKAN [LAWS(KER)-2011-3-382] [REFERRED TO]
ANITHA BABY VS. KUNJAPPAN PAINKILY [LAWS(KER)-2014-12-9] [REFERRED TO]
SURENDER SINGH CHADHA VS. SUBHASH CHAND SAINI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-12-163] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH TANGRI VS. VED MATTA [LAWS(P&H)-2002-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY S/O AVINASHCHANDER KAPOOR VS. GANDHI ELECTRICALS [LAWS(BOM)-2022-7-155] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIV GOEL AND ANOTHER VS. RAJINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-8-223] [REFERRED]
PRAHLAD KUMAR VS. SIDDNATH [LAWS(ALL)-2012-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
YOUNG FRIENDS & CO. & ORS. VS. PURI INVESTMENTS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM NARAIN PANDEY VS. SUKHOO [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
M. AMARENDER REDDY VS. CANARA BANK [LAWS(APH)-2016-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI VS. KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2021-3-36] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. DIVANGNAKUMARI HARISINH PARMAR [LAWS(BOM)-2005-2-197] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU RANI VS. ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAJVIR SINGH VS. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KISAN DEGREE COLLEGE, SIMBHAOLI & OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-308] [REFERRED TO]
EHTESHAM ULLAH KHAN VS. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-2003-5-118] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION [LAWS(GJH)-2005-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAI VS. NANDAKUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2012-2-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER KUMAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L RS VS. RAJINDER PARSHAD THROUGH LR UPENDAR VERMA & ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-3-325] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. HEEM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2020-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
DASS KUMAR VS. TILAK RAJ [LAWS(P&H)-2009-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
VAISAKUMAR VS. SUPREME FINANCIERS [LAWS(KER)-2004-8-25] [FOLLOWED 7]
LABH SINGH AND OTHERS VS. BACHAN KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-627] [REFERRED TO]
TRADE LINK LIMITED AND ANR. VS. VARINDER KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-307] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. TRILOKI NATH PANDEY H C C P 232 [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-201] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER KUMAR VS. ROHIT MADAN & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2018-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
KOPPISETTY RAMANA AND ORS. VS. EMANI RAMANAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2016-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. B. SUKESHINI & ANR. VS. GAMPA SRINIVAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2018-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR [LAWS(SC)-2011-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
M/S TRADE LINK LIMITED AND ANOTHER VS. VARINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2010-9-771] [REFERRED TO]
THOTTUNGAL VELAYUDHAN VS. SECRETARY YOUTH CONGRESS OFFICE [LAWS(KER)-2003-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA AND OTHERS VS. VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-342] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. RADHEY SHYAM [LAWS(ALL)-2014-9-215] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ RAI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
SRI JENAMANI SHAILENDRA KR. RAY VS. ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND 2 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-97] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIN SINGH VS. MAHENDRA SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-8-184] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN DAS VS. ANUSUYA TAK [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: SUBHIKSHA TRADING SERVICES LIMITED REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR R. SUBRAMANIAN; BLUE GREEN CONSTRUCTIONS AND INVESTMENTS LIMITED REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR R. SUBRAMANIAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-408] [REFERRED TO]
BETIVEEN SURAJ BHAN VS. 7TH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO 8 MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-150] [REFERRED TO]
GAMPA SRINIVAS VS. B. SUKESHINI [LAWS(APH)-2018-3-69] [REFERRED TO]
ANSUL INDUSTRIES VS. SHIVA TOBACCO COMPANY [LAWS(DLH)-2007-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
KINRI DHIR VS. VEER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-4-157] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Brijesh Kumar, J. -
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The Appellant in this appeal has impugned the judgment and order dated 26-6-2001 passed by the Kerala High Court, allowing in the civil revision preferred by the respondent-landlord, setting aside the appellate order and holding that the Rent Controller was justified in passing an order of eviction of the tenant-appellant under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.
(3.)The facts which do not admit of dispute are that the accommodation in question originally belonged to the grand-father of the present respondent, who died in the year 1953. It came down to the father of the respondent who also died some time 1976. The property ultimately came to the respondent. In the year 1949 Shri P. George, grandfather of the respondent rented out the premises to the appellant-company which was sub-let to different sub-tenants from time to time. The respondent gave notice to the appellant on 17-11-1981 to terminate the sub-lease arrangements but the tenant failed to comply with the notice. Ultimately John P. Thomas-respondent filed RCP No. 16 of 1982 in the Court of Rent Controller, Kottayam. The eviction was sought on the ground that the appellant-tenant had transferred his rights creating sub-leases in favour of several persons without the consent of the landlord. One of the sub-tenants had even been running a printing press in the premises whereas according to the case of the landlord the premises were let out to the appellant for its use as an office and godown. The petition was contested but the fact of sub-letting was not denied. On the other hand, it was pleaded that one sub-lease was created initially in 1949 itself when the premises were taken by the appellant on rent which fact was within the knowledge of the grandfather and the father of the respondent as well as that of the present respondent. Admittedly, a few more sub-leases were created in 1970s. Nobody ever objected to the same. It could thus well be presumed that the landlord had consented to the sub-letting which was within their knowledge. There does not seem to be any document of lease. The appellant also produced one CPW2 in evidence who had been one of the Directors of the appellant Co. from 1946 to 1960. According to him negotiations of rental arrangement took place in his presence and the arrangement of letting included sub-letting as well.
(2.)The Appellant in this appeal has impugned the judgment and order dated 26-6-2001 passed by the Kerala High Court, allowing in the civil revision preferred by the respondent-landlord, setting aside the appellate order and holding that the Rent Controller was justified in passing an order of eviction of the tenant-appellant under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965.
(3.)The facts which do not admit of dispute are that the accommodation in question originally belonged to the grand-father of the present respondent, who died in the year 1953. It came down to the father of the respondent who also died some time 1976. The property ultimately came to the respondent. In the year 1949 Shri P. George, grandfather of the respondent rented out the premises to the appellant-company which was sub-let to different sub-tenants from time to time. The respondent gave notice to the appellant on 17-11-1981 to terminate the sub-lease arrangements but the tenant failed to comply with the notice. Ultimately John P. Thomas-respondent filed RCP No. 16 of 1982 in the Court of Rent Controller, Kottayam. The eviction was sought on the ground that the appellant-tenant had transferred his rights creating sub-leases in favour of several persons without the consent of the landlord. One of the sub-tenants had even been running a printing press in the premises whereas according to the case of the landlord the premises were let out to the appellant for its use as an office and godown. The petition was contested but the fact of sub-letting was not denied. On the other hand, it was pleaded that one sub-lease was created initially in 1949 itself when the premises were taken by the appellant on rent which fact was within the knowledge of the grandfather and the father of the respondent as well as that of the present respondent. Admittedly, a few more sub-leases were created in 1970s. Nobody ever objected to the same. It could thus well be presumed that the landlord had consented to the sub-letting which was within their knowledge. There does not seem to be any document of lease. The appellant also produced one CPW2 in evidence who had been one of the Directors of the appellant Co. from 1946 to 1960. According to him negotiations of rental arrangement took place in his presence and the arrangement of letting included sub-letting as well.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.