Supreme Court Upholds Eviction on Sub-letting: Flora Elias Nahoum & Ors. vs. Idrish Ali Laskar (25 January 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 50
Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a tenant be evicted if they allow another person to conduct business from the rented premises? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The core issue was whether the tenant had sub-let the premises without the landlord’s consent. The two-judge bench, comprised of Justices R.K. Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, delivered the judgment, with Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The appellants, Flora Elias Nahoum and others, are the landlords of a shop in Calcutta. The shop was originally rented to Alfajuddin Laskar, who ran an egg business. After Alfajuddin’s death in 1976, his son, Idrish Ali Laskar (the respondent), became the tenant. The respondent then closed the egg business and started a tailoring shop. In 1978, the landlords filed an eviction suit against the respondent, alleging default in rent payment, bona fide need, sub-letting, and unauthorized construction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit, finding the respondent guilty of sub-letting and making unauthorized constructions, but not guilty of default in rent payment or bona fide need. The High Court of Calcutta reversed the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the eviction suit entirely. The landlords then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case hinges on Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, which states:

“where the tenant or any person residing in the premises let to the tenant without the previous consent in writing of the landlord transfers, assigns or sublets in whole or in part the premises held by him, then it is a ground for the tenant’s eviction from the tenanted premises.”

This provision makes sub-letting without the landlord’s consent a ground for eviction.

Arguments

Landlords’ Arguments:

• The landlords argued that the respondent had sub-let the shop to one Joynal Mullick without their consent.
• They claimed that the respondent had transferred possession of the shop to Joynal Mullick, which constituted sub-letting under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Tenant’s Arguments:

• Initially, the tenant denied sub-letting the shop to anyone, including Joynal Mullick.
• Later, the tenant claimed Joynal Mullick was his employee.
• In further contradiction, the tenant stated that Joynal Mullick was his business partner.
• The tenant contended that he had not transferred exclusive possession of the shop to Joynal Mullick.

The core of the dispute was whether the tenant had transferred possession of the shop to Joynal Mullick, thereby constituting sub-letting.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in reversing the Trial Court’s finding on sub-letting and unauthorized construction.
2. Whether the Trial Court was right in holding that the ground of sub-letting was made out.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India (1998) 3 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to explain the concept of sub-letting and its attributes. The court emphasized that sub-letting occurs when a tenant gives up possession of the premises, wholly or partly, to another person.

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956: This section was central to the case, defining sub-letting as a ground for eviction when a tenant transfers, assigns, or sub-lets premises without the landlord’s consent.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India [(1998) 3 SCC 1]* to define sub-letting, emphasizing that it involves giving up possession of the premises to another person.
• The Court applied Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 to determine that the tenant’s actions constituted sub-letting without the landlord’s consent, which is a valid ground for eviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the tenant’s inconsistent statements and failure to provide evidence supporting his claims. The court noted that the tenant initially denied sub-letting, then claimed Joynal Mullick was an employee, and later a business partner. This lack of clarity and the absence of supporting documentation weighed heavily against the tenant.

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual inconsistencies in the tenant’s statements (70%), while the legal aspects and precedents played a smaller but significant role (30%).

Logical Reasoning

Judgment Analysis

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, restoring the Trial Court’s finding that the tenant had sub-let the premises. The court emphasized that the tenant’s contradictory statements and failure to provide evidence regarding Joynal Mullick’s status were critical in establishing sub-letting. The court relied on Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India [(1998) 3 SCC 1]* to define sub-letting and applied Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The court stated:

“In our opinion, the contradictory stand of the respondent and that too without any evidence clearly leads to an inference that the respondent was unable to prove, in categorical terms, as to which capacity, Joynal Mullick was sitting in the suit shop – whether as an “employee” or a “business partner” or in any “other capacity”.”

The court further noted:

“In a case of sub-letting, if the tenant is able to prove that he continues to retain the exclusive possession over the tenanted premises notwithstanding any third party’s induction in the tenanted premises, no case of sub-letting is made out against such tenant.”

The court also observed:

“It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property.”

The judgment highlights that a tenant must be consistent in their defense and provide evidence to support their claims. The court’s decision reinforces that sub-letting without the landlord’s consent is a valid ground for eviction under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

Key Takeaways

• For Landlords: This judgment reinforces the right to evict tenants who sub-let premises without consent. Landlords should gather evidence of sub-letting, such as inconsistent statements from the tenant and the presence of unauthorized individuals in the premises.
• For Tenants: Tenants must be consistent in their defense and provide clear evidence to support their claims. Claiming employment or partnership without supporting documents will not be sufficient to avoid eviction for sub-letting.
• Future Impact: This case sets a precedent for how courts will interpret sub-letting under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. It emphasizes the importance of clear and consistent evidence in tenancy disputes.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent to vacate the shop within three months, subject to filing an undertaking to deposit all arrears of rent and mesne profits. The respondent was required to vacate the shop on or before 30 April 2018.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a tenant cannot avoid eviction for sub-letting by making inconsistent statements and failing to provide evidence of their claims. The judgment reinforces that sub-letting occurs when a tenant gives up possession of the premises to another person without the landlord’s consent, as defined under Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case clarifies the evidentiary burden on the tenant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and restoring the Trial Court’s decision. The court held that the tenant had sub-let the premises without the landlord’s consent, based on inconsistent statements and lack of evidence. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to tenancy laws and providing clear evidence in tenancy disputes.