Holding

A sub‑letting made with the landlord’s written consent remains lawful even after the contractual tenancy ends and does not constitute a ground for eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a).

Summary

Mahabir Prasad occupied a shop‑cum‑flat in Chandigarh under a one‑month rent note dated 24‑04‑1974. The landlady, Surinder Kaur, claimed the tenant had illegally sub‑let portions of the premises after the tenancy expired and sought eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The Rent Controller, relying on a tape‑recorded conversation, found that sub‑letting occurred in May 1974 and ordered eviction, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the High Court. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Rent Controller to determine the timing of the sub‑letting and, on review, held that there was no evidence of sub‑letting after April 1974; the tenant had sub‑let in April with the landlord’s written consent, which remained lawful even after the contractual tenancy ended. The Court held that lawful sub‑letting does not constitute a ground for eviction under the Act and that the tape‑recorded conversation could not be relied upon as sole evidence. Consequently, the eviction order was set aside.

Issues considered

Whether sub‑letting by a tenant with the landlord’s written consent during the tenancy becomes unlawful after the contractual tenancy expires, thereby furnishing a ground for eviction under Section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.
Whether the Rent Controller’s finding of sub‑letting in May 1974 is supported by admissible evidence.
Whether a tape‑recorded conversation is admissible as evidence in eviction proceedings.

Legislation cited

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949s. 13(2)(ii)(a), s. 2(c), s. 2(i)

Subjects

sub‑lettingevictionlandlord‑tenantstatutory tenantwritten consentevidencetape recordingEast Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act

Judgment

60'1 A
• MAHA!UR ll,JlASAb VilRMA
v.
DR. SURINDER KAUR B
April 7, I 982

[R.S. PATHAI: AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.)

Landlord and tenant-East Pun/ab Urban Land Restriction Act, 1949-Sec-
tion 13(2} (ii) (a)-Scop• of-Sub-tenant-inducttd In a portion oftheprtmJses
c
with the permission of landlord-Whether such subletting became unlawful on
dlt1rminatlon of tenancy-Tenant, if liable to be evicted.

Evid111a-Tape r~orded nidence o~ly corroborative in nature .
•
D
Section 13(2) (ii);(a) of the East Punjab Urban Land Restriction Act 1949
provides that.if a tenant has, aft•r the coauncnccmcnt of the Act, without .the
written consent of the landlord sub-Jot tho entiro build inc or any portion the roof
tlio tenant shall be liable to be evicted on the ground of such sub-letting.

The Act · - ma4e applicable to tbe Union Territory of Chandiprb from
November 1972. B
/The respondent landlady fil~d a petition beforo the Rent Controller alleg-
ing that the 'tenaJ:J.t bad sub~let.a portion of the premises under his occu~tion in

_.,.
breach of section 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act and. that therofore he was liable to be
evicted. The Rent Controller ordered bis eviction. The tenant's appeal to tho
Appellate Authority and later revision petition to the High Court were
dismissed.
,
In the tenant's special leave petilion, this Court directed the Rent Con-
troller to record a finding whether the tenant had sub-Jet any porlion .of the .prc-
111ises after April 1974. The Rent Controller found that a portion of the premises
was sub-let by the tenant in May 1974.
G

• On I.he question (1) whether the exi<tence of the sub-tenant in the premises
after the expiry of the contractual tenancy necessarily rendered the sub-Jetting
illegal and furnished a ground for <0viction within the meaning of section 13(2) (ii)
(a) ol the Act (2) whethenhe sub,letting by the tenant with the written consent
of the land-lady during the currency of the tenancy became unlawful and illegal H
on.the determination of the 'tonancy and furnished a ground for eviction·within
the meanins of the section.
608 (I 98iJ 3 s.c.ft..
A Allowing the petition,

HELD: 1. There is no evidence on record to justify the finding of the
Rent Controller that the tenant had sub-let a portion of the premises in May
1974. [623 E]

2. The tenant has not sub-let any portiQn of premises without the con..
B sent of the land-lady after the commencement of the Act and therefore the land-
lady had no ground for Cviction of the tenant on the ground of sub-letting within
the meaning of the section. In the instant case the written consent to sub-let a
portion of the premises as required by the statute had been given by the land-
lady to the tenant and, it was in terms of that authority that the tenant had
inducted a sub-tenant' in April 1974 when the contractual tenancy was subsisting.
c Therefore the sub-letting did not afford any ground for eviction of the tenant on
the ground of sub-letting. [626 F-H]

3. The crux of the matter is that if after the commencement of the Act,
the tenant bas lawfully .sub-let a portion of the premises with the .written.consent
of the landlord, the sub-tenant ·becomes a lawful su~-tenant and becomes a
"tenant" within the meaning of the Act with the tenant as his landlord and con-
D tinues to enjoy all the protection available to a tenant under the Act. The tenant
who inducts such sub-tenant is not entitled to evict him as landlord of the sub-
tenant except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. [624 B-G]

4. The argument of the land-lady that on the expiry of the month of
April her 'consent bad stood withdrawn is of no consequence because in the ins..
tant case the tenant has sub-let a portion of the premises in April 1974 when ad~
E mittedly .the wrihen consent of the land-lady was in existence. The continuance,, in.
possession of such sub-tenant in a portion lawfully iet out to him on the expiry of
the month of April did not amount to or have the effect of any fresh sub-letting
by the tenant at the end of April. A lawful sub-letting on the basis of the provi-
sions of the Act does not become unlawful merely because the contractual
tenancy of the tenant comes to an end. [625 F-H]
F
5 (a). Tape-recorded conversation between the husband of the-landlady ·.-~~·
and the tenant on which the Rent Controller had relied could only be corrobo-
rative evidence of conversation deposed to by any of the parties. In the absence
•
of any such evidence the tape-recorded conversation cannot be proper evidence
and cannot be relied upon. [623 E-F]

G (b) That apart, the tape-recorded evidence indicated that on the expiry
of the term of the tenancy, the land-lady had not merely accepted tile ~ent but
had manifested her intention of continuing the tenancy notwithstanding the expiry,
of the term. The evh:lence also showed that the husband of the land-lady asked
the tenant to induct suitable persons as sub-tenants under him. [623 G-H]

H CIVIL APPBLLATB JURISDICTION·: Civil Appeal No. 1830
of 1978.
/

MAHABIR PRASAD v. SURINDER KAUR (A.N. Sen, 1.) 609

From the Judgment and Order dated the 19th September, A
1978 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil
Revision No. 1398 of 1978.

V.M. Tarkunde an<I H.K. Puri for the appellant.

T:U. Mehta, N.D. Garg, Rajiv Garg and S.K. Bislf'lia for the
8
respondent.

T.he Judgment of the Court was delivered by

AMARENDRA NATH SEN, J. Whether on a proper construction c
of the terms of tenancy and th.e provisions of the East Punjab Rent
Restriction Act, 1949, the appellant is liable to be evicted from the
premises in his occupation as tenant, on the ground of wrongful
sub-letting of the premises, is the question which falls for con-
sideration ,in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court.
. 0
The appellant came into occupation of the shop-cum-flat
No. 48, Sector 3-C, Chandigarh on and from 1st of April, 1974 as a
tenant under the respondent who happens to be the owner of the
said premises on terms anq conditions contained in the rent-note
dated 2 4.1974. For the sake of convenience we shall describe the
appellant as the' tenant and the respondent as the landlady of the E
premises.
,
The landlady filed her present petition (R.A. No. 163 of 1977)
in the Court of Rent Controller Chandigarh, under S. 13 ol the
Easi Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred
to as the Aet) for the eviction of-the tenant on two grounds, namely, F
non-payment of rent and sub-letting of the flat portion and Barsati
portion of the premises. On the said petition of the landlady the
Rent Controller, Chandigarh passe.d an order of eviction of the
tenant on 17.IL1977. only on the ground of sub-letting. The other
ground, namely noh,-payment of rent by the tenant, did not
succeed.
G

Against the order of the Rent Controller, the tenant filed an
appeal under S. 15 of the Act before the Appellate Authority, The
Appellate Authority by its judgment dated 9.8.1978 dismissed the H
appeal of the tenant and upheld the order of eviction passed by the
Rent Controller.
.610 stJi>ilEMil cotJkt llU!l>okts tl<>A~l 1 s.t.l.

Against the judgment and order of the appellate authority, the
tenant filed a revision petition under S. rs of the Act before the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Courv·
by its judgment dated 19.9. 78 dismissed the said petition.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court,
the tenant has filed this appeal with special leave granted
B by this Court, challenging the correctness of the decision ordering
the eviction of the tenant from the said premises on the. ground -0f
.,_. sub-letting.

Before we proceed to consider the arguments advanced from
the Bar, it will be convenient to set out the terms of tenancy con-
c tained in the rent note da;ed 2.4.1974 and also the relevant provi-
<
sions of the Act.

The relevant terms contained in the rent note read as
follows:-
D "I That the period of tenancy shall be one month com-
mencing from the 1.4.1974 to 30.4.1974.

2. That rent hereby fixed shall be Rs.· 450/- pm.

x x x x
E'
x x x x

4. That the possession of the said· premises bas already
been received by the tenant from •the owner.

F x x x x

x x x x
x x x x

8. That the tenant has a right' to sub-let the flat portion
G , mentioned,
and Barsati portion of this said SCP above

x x x x

x x x x
H 14. At the expiry of the tenancy the tenant shall redeli-
ver the vacant possession of the said premises to the
0

MAtiA11.i PRASAb v. SURINDER KAUR (A.tv. Sen, J;) 611
owner in the original condition failing which he shall A
be liable to pay the mesne profits."
J \
The relevant provisions of the Act are contained in S. · 13 of
the Act, the material provisions of which may be noted :
B
"13. (1) A tenant in possession of bnilding or rented
land shall not be evicted therefrom in execution of a
decree passed before or after the commencement of this
Act or otherwise and whether before or after the termina-
tion of the tenancy, except in accordance with the provi-
sions of this section, or in pursuance of an order mad~
c
under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction
Act, 1'947, as subsequently amended.

(2) A•landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall
apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If D
the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportu-
nity of showing cause against the applicant, is satisfied-

(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent
due by him in respect of the building or rooted land
.E
within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in
the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the
absence of any such agreement, by the last day of the
\
month next following that for which the rent is
payable;
F
Provided that if the tenant on the first hearing of
the application for ~jectment after due service pays or
tenders the arrears o( rent and interest at six per cent
per annum on such arrears together with the cost
of application assessed by the Controller, the tenant
shall be deemed to have duly paid or tendered the rent G
withfo the time afore~aid. ·

•
(ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of tllis
Act without the written consent of the landlord-
H
(a) transferred bis right under the lease or sub-let the
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS / 1982] 3 s.c.ll.
A entire building or rented land or any portion
thereof; or

x x x x

x x x x
B
In the instant case, there is no dispute that the tenant
had sub-Jet the Flat portion and Barsati portion of said premises
to sub-tenants. There is, however, a dispute as to when the
sub-tenants were inducted by the tenant. As no clear finding
had been recorded in the judgment of the Rent Controller or of
c the Appellate Authority or the High Court as to when the sub-
tenants were inducted, and as there is no finding as to whether the
tenant had sub-let any portion after the month of April, 1974, this
Oourt passed an order on the 24th of November, 198 I remitting
the following issue to the Rent Controller, Chandigarh for a
finding:~
D
"Whether any one or more of the sub-tenancies alleged
by the Landlady-respondent were created_by the tenant·
appellant during the month of April, 1974 or it was only
thereafter that the sub-letting took place?"
E
This. Court while passing the said order, further directed that the
Rent ControHer would permit the parties to lead evidence on the
point and would render his findings after taking into consideration

-
the evidence 11lready on record and any additional evidence that
might be led.
F
Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the Rent
Controller after taking further evidence had recorded his finding on
•
this issue. The finding of the Rent Controller is that there· was
sub-Jetting of a small bed-room in the flat portion and also of the
G Barsati portion by the tenant also in the month of May. This
finding of the Rent Controller has been disputed before us by the
te~t. . .
Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
H tenant, has submitted that in view of the express authority given
to the tenant as contained in cl. 8 of the rent note to sub-let the flat
portion and the Barsati portion which portions had, in fact, been
• MAHAJUR PRASAQ v. SURINDER KAUR (A.N. Sen, J.) 613
A
sub-Jet by the tenant, there can be no question of wrongful and
• illegal sub.Jetting by the tenant of the said portions, as the sub-Jetting
is with the written consent of the land-lady; and the provisions con-
tained in S. 13 (2) (ii) (a) can have no application and there can be·
no ground or cause of action for eviction of the tenant on the ground
of sub-letting within the meaning of the said prov1s1on. B
Mr. Tarkunde has argued that· the Act was made applicable_ to
Chandigarh from 4. l l.1972 and the tenancy was created
in April, 1974 long after the Act bad come into operation in
Chandigarh and had become applicable to the premjses
in question. It is Mr. Tarkuride's argument that in view
of the prohibition on sub-letti~g without the consent of the
landlord in tvriting contained in the Act, the landlady in the instant
c
case has in writing expressly authorised the tenant to sub-let the flat
portion and the Barsati portion of the said premises, so that the
tenant does not come within the mischief of the said provision. Mr.
Tarkunde contends that it is not in dispute that the tenant had
sub-Jet the flat portion and the Barsati portion of the premises in D
termlr of the authority given to. the tenan( in writing an<l as the
sub-letting has been done by. the tenant with the written consent of
the landlady after the commencement of the Act and of the portions
the tenant w~s authorised to sub-let, there can be no violation of the
provisions of S. 13 (2) (ii) (a) of the Act. It is the contention of
Mr. Tarkunde that as the subletting was done by the tenant in terms. E
of the _written authority given by the la.n~lady to t~e tenant.' t~e
sublettmg can consttttite no ground for ev1ct1on of the tenant w1thm
the meaning of the said section of the Act and there can be no
order of eviction of the tenant on the ground of subletting by the

...... tenant. Mr. Tarkunde has submitted that the High Court has
proceeded on the basis that the sub-tenants had continued in occu- F
pation after the month of April, 1974, and as the terms of contrac'.
tual tenancy ended on the expiry of the month of April, 1974, the
continuance of sub-tenants inducted with the written consent of
the landlady after th~ month of. April, became unauthorised and
illegal and resulted in subletting without the written consent of the
landlady and as such the provision contained in S. 13 (2) (ii) (a) G
became applicable and the tenant became liable to eviction· on the
ground of wrongful sµbletting within the meaning of the said provi-
sion. Mr: Tarkunde, in this connection, has commented that the
view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is that if the
sub-t~nants, though lawfully inducted, continue to b~ in poss~ssioq B
614 SUPRBAIE COURT RBPORTS. · (1982] 3 s.c.ll.

A after the expiry of the lease of the tenants, such sub-letting becomes
unlawful and furnishes a ground for eviction of the tenant. In this
connection, Mr. Tarkunde has referred to the following observations
of the learned Judge in this case :

D "In Kartar Singh & Others v. Tarlok Singh & Others('}
Pandit, J. held that the permission given by the landlord to
the tenant to have sub-tenants during the currency of the
lease is of no avail after the termination of the tenancy and
if the sub-tenants continue on the property even after the
expiry of the lease, the tenant was guilty of sub-letting
c without the written permission of the landlord".

Mr. Tarkunde has submitted that this view of the High Court on
the basis of which the order for eviction has been upheld is clearly
erroneous. Drawing onr attention to the relevant provisions con-
tained in S. 13 (2) (ii} (a) of the Act, Mr. Tarkunde has submitted
D that the statute only forbids sub-lettiog without the written consent
of the landlord after the commencement of the Act and by necessary
implication the statute ilermits sub-letting by the tenant with the
written consent of the landlord. Mr. Tarkunde contends that if the
sub-tenants are inducted by the tenant with the written consent of
the landlord, the sub-letting is authorised and legal and the conti-
E nuance of the sub-tenant thereafter cannot. be considered to be
unlawful or illegal on the ground that the tenancy of the tenant had
come to end, as the sub-tenants continue to enjoy possession in their
own right as sub-tenant and the tenant who has inducted the sub-
tenants cannot and does not enjoy any power or authority of
F evicting the sub-tenant except in due process of law. In this connec-
tion Mr. Tarkunde has drawn our attention to the definition of
'landlord' and also of 'tenant' as given in S. 2 (c) and (i) of the
Act.
•
The definition of the landlord as given in S. 2 (c) is as
G follows:

" 'landlord' means any person for the time being
entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented
land whether on his own account or on behalf, or for the
H benefit, of any other person, or administrator for any other

(1) !1973) Punj. L.R,. 824 (P.<;:, l
MAHABIR PRASAD v. SURINDBR KAUR (A..N. Sen, J.) 615

person, and· includes a tenant who sub-lets any building or A
rented land .in the manner .hereinafter authorised, and,
• every person from time to time deriving title under a
landlord" .

• The definition of tenant as mentioned in S. 2 (i) reads : B
" 'tenant' means any person by whom. or on whose
account rent is payable for a building or rented land and
includes a tenant continuing in possession after the termi-
nation of the tenancy in his favour, but does not include a .
person placed in occupation of a buildioi; or rented land c
by its tenant, unless .with the consent in writing of the
landlord, or a person to whom the collection of rent or
fees in a public market, car-stand or slaughter-house or of
rents for shops has been farmed. out or leased by a munici-
pal town or notified area committee".
D
Mr. Tarkunde argues that the definition of landlord clearly indicated
that a 'landlord' wihio the meaning of the Act includes a tenant
who sub-lets with lawful authority and the definition of 'tenant'
within th.e meaning of the Act also io~ludes a sub-tenant who has
been lawfully inducted. Referring to these definitions Mr. Tarkuode
has submitted that as soon as the tenant has lawfully sub-let the
portions. to the sub-tenants the tenant in the instant case becomes a
'landlord' 'within the meaning of the Act and the sub-tenant lawfully
inducted becomes a tenant under him within the meaning of this
Act and the provisions of the Act are applicable to them. Mr.
Tarkunde argues that by virtue of the aforesaid definitions, a
tenant continues to be in possession after the termination of the
tenancy in bis favour, remains a tenant within the meaning of the
• Act and con.tinues to enjoy all the benefits of the Act. • It is the
argument of Mr. Tarkund.e that the sub-tenants lawfully inducted
must, therefore, be considered to be in lawful possession under the
tenant as the landlord and ·the sub-tenant must also be lleld to be
entitled to remain in possession after the expiry of the term and the
G.
termination of the tenancy, whether of the tenant or of the sub-
tenant, by virtue of the provisions of the Act.

. Mr. Tarkunde has next contended that though in the instant II'
case the tenancy was granted for the month of April, the tenant on
the expiry of the ~id period i1 entitled to Q011ti11~ to r~mtin in
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.ll.

A possession and enjoyment of the premises by virtue of the provisions
contained in the Act. It is the contention of Mr. Tarkunde, that
even on.the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy, the tenancy •
continues under the provisions of the Act and the tenancy continues
on the same terms and conditions. In support of this contention
· Mr. Tarkunde has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of
B V. Dhanapa/ Chettiar .v. Yesodai Amma/(1) and has placed particular
reliance on the f~llowing observations at p. 351-352: '

"This is exactly the reason why we have thought it fit
to review all the decisions and lay down a uniform Ia w for
all the States. Section I 0 (I) of the Andhra Pradesh Act
t provided that "A tenant shall not be evicted whether in
execution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance
with the provisions of this section or ~ections I 2 and 13.
"A special provision in the Andhra Act was contained in
section JO (7) which says :
D
'Where an ..application under sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3) for evicting a tenant has been rejected by
the Controller, the tenancy shall, subject to the provi·
sions of this Act' be deemed to continue OD the same
terms and conditions as before and shall not be termi-
E nable by the landlord except on one or ·more of the
grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) or sub-section
(3) ."

-
, This special provision is.provided by way of abundant
F precaution only. Even without this a tenant continuing
in possession after the termination of the contractual
tenancy and until an eviction order is passed against him
continues OD the same terms and conditions as before and •
he cannot be evicted unless a ground is made out for the
evic!ion according to be the State Rent Act."

Relying on the aforesaid observations, Mr. Tarkunde has argued ,
that even on the expiry of the contractual tenancy in the month
of April, the tenant continues to be a tenant under the statute
on the same terrns and conditions as a statutory tenant

" (l) ~1980) I SCR 334.
MAHABIR PRASAD v. SURIND)lR KAUR (A,N. Sfn, J.) 617 ·

and be continues to enjoy the authority of subletting of the fiat A
portion and the barsati portion of the said premises in terms
'•' of the agreement originally entered into by and between the
tenant and the landlady. It is the argument of Mr. Tarkunde
that contractual tenancy in the instant case is determined by
efilux of, time but, the tenant is protected against bis eviction
• B
by statute and as a statutory tenant, the tenant continues to
enjoy the same right of sub-letting which he had as contractual
tenant and the said right of the tenant is not lost on the determin!l-
tion of the contractual tenancy. In this connection, Mr. Tarkunde
has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Damadilal
and others v. Parashram and Others,(') and he has relied on the
following observations at pp. 653-654 :-
c

"We find it difficult to appreciate how in this country
Yie can proceed on the basis that a tenant whose contractual
.tenancy bas determined but who is protected against eviction D
by the statute, has no right of property but only a personal
right to remain in occupation, without ascertaining what
his rights are under the statute. The concept of a
statutory .tenant having no estate or property in the
... premises which he occupies is derived from the
provisions of• the English. Rent Acts. But it is not
clear how it can be assumed that the position is the
same in this country without any reference to the provisions
of the r,elevant statute. ·Tenancy has its origin in con-
tract. There is no dispute th.at a contractual tenant has an

-. ' estate or property in the subject matter of the tenancy, and
heritability is an incident of the tenancy. It cannot be F
assumed, however, that with the determination of the
tenancy bis status of irremovability and not the estate be
'
bad in the premises in his occupation. It is not possible to
claim that the 'sanctity' of contract cannot pe touched by
legislation. It is, therefore, . necessary to examine the
provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation G.
Control Act, 1961 to find out whether the r6spondents' pre-
decessors-in-interest retained a heritable interest in the
disputed premises even after the termination of their
tenancy.
u
(I) (1976J Suppt ~·~·~· 64~,
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] 3 s.c.R.

Section "2 (i) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation
Control. Act, 1961 defines 'tenant' to !llean, unless the
context otherwise requires :

'a pcyson by whom or .on .':'hose account or behalf the
B rent of any accommodation' 1s, or, but for a contract
express or implied, would be payable for any accommoda-
tion and includes any person occupying the accommodation
as a sub-tenant and also any person continuing in posses-
sion after the termination of his tenancy whether before or
after the commencement of this Act; but shall not include
c any person against whom any order or decree for eviction
has been made··. ·

The definition makes a person continuing in possession
after the determination of his tenancy a tenant unless after
D a decree or order for eviction bas been made against him,
· thus putting him on par with a person whose contractual
tenancy still subsists. The incidents of such tenancy and
a contractual tenancy must therefore be the' same unless
any provision of the ~ct conveyed a contrary intention.
i:hat under the Act such a tenant retains an interest in
E · the premises, and not merely a personal right of occupation,
will also appear from section 14 which contains provisions
restricting the tenant's powe; of sub-letting. Section 14 is
in these terms :
I -
'
F 'Sec. 14. Restrictions on sub-letting:-(!) No tenant
shall, wit.bout the previous consent in wrfting cir the
landlord-

(a) sub-let the wholC or 8JlY part of the accCi>mmodation
held by him as a tenant; or
G
(b) transfer or assign his rights ·in the tenancy or in any
part thereof.

(2) No landlord shall claim or receive the payment of
any sum as premium or pugrce or claim or. receive any
H consideraion wbatsoeyer in cash or in kind for giving his
consent to the sub-letiing of the whole or any part of the
accommodation held by the tem1nt,'
MAHAhlk PRASAD v. !iuRIND~ll KAUR (A.N. Sen, J.) M~

There is nothing to suggest that this .section does not·.
apply to all te~ants as defined in section 2(i). A contractual
tenant has an estate or interest in premises from which be
carves out what be gives to the sub-tanant. Section 14
··read with section 2 (i) makes it clear that .the so-called
statutory tenant has the right to sub-let in common with a
B
contractual tenant and this is because he also has an
interest in the premises occupied by him."

i\
Mr. Tarkunde has further submitteo that in the instant case
the question of any sub-letting• by the tenant on the expiry of the
term of tenancy does not really arise, as the tenant had sub-let the
c
fiat portion and also the barsati portion in the month ·or April in
terms of the written consent of the landlady, while the contractual ·
tenancy was subsisting and in force. It is his submisssion that the
finding of the Rent Controller· that the tenant bad sub-let one
bed room in the fiat portion and also the barsati portion in -the • D
month of May, in aswering the issue remitted to him by this Court,
is clearly erroneous and not borne out by the evidence on record.
Mr. Tarkunde has argued that the Rent Controller in arriving at
this finding has mainly relied on the tape.recorded conversation
between the tenant arid landlady's husband who also happens to
hold
. the power of -
attorney . of the landlady. He bas argued
~
E
that rendering of the tape-recorded conversation can be legal
evidence bY way Of corroborating the statement of a person
who deposes that the other speaker and he carried on that con-
versation or even of the statement of a person who depos~s that he
over-heard the conversation between the two persons and what
they actuaJly stated, had been tape-recorded. It is his argu- F
ment that tape-recorded conversation may be useq only as a corro-
bora.tive evidence of such conversation deposed to by any of the ·
parties to the conversation and in the instant case in the absence of
any such evidence the tape-recorded conversation is indeed no evidence
·and cannot be relied upon. Mr. Tarkunde, in support of this argu-
ment has relied on the decision of this Court in the.case of S. Pratap
G
Singh v. The Srate of Punjab.(') Mr. Tarkunde bas further argued that
even if relianee is to be placed ·on the tape-recorded. conversation,
it must then be held on the basis of the evidence recorded therein
that the contractual tenancy had continued beyond tb'e period of the

(I) [1964) 4 SCR 733.
SUPREME coullt f!.EPOUS fl982l 3 s.c.~
A ·month of April. According to Mr. Tarkunde, in the present case the
landlady had not merely accepted the rent which the landlady had
. in fact done; on ·the expiry of the contractual period of tenancy,
but the tape-recorded conversation clearly indicates that the tenancy
was treated as continuing between the parties, notwithstanding
the expiry of the pericd and the tenant was recognised as tenant
B with lawful authority to sub-let even after •the expiry of the month
of April, 1974.

Mr. Tarkunde on the basis of the aforesaid contention has
submitted. that the order of eviction against the tenant on the
c ground of subletting in the instant case is erroneous and should be
set aside.

. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the land-
lady, has submitted that the tenancy, in the instant case was created·
D only for the month of April, 1974. He submits that on the expiry
of April, 1974, the tenancy by efflux of time stands determined and
the agreement between the pariies comes to ·an end. He has
argued tjiat though under the terms Of tenancy, the tenant had
been given the necessary permission and authority to sub-let, such
consent or authority would remain valid only for the month of
E April and there could lawfully be any sub-tenants only for the
'month of April. He contends t!Jat on the expiry of the month of
April when the co.ntractual tenancy comes to an end, the possession
of any sub-tenant of any portion of the said premises would be ,.un-
iiuthorised and illegal. It is his contention that it is not open to the
tenant to creat by way of sub-tenancy or otherwise any interest in
any other person larger than the interest which the tenant himself
enjoys. According to Mr. Mwta, ·the tenant on the terms and
conditions of the tenancy enjoyed the right of a tenant only for the
month of April and the tenant could only, the1efore, induct any sub-
tenant on the basis of the terms and conditions of the tenancy only
for the month of April; and the enjoyment or possession of any
portion of the said premises by any suh·tenant after the month of
April would necessanly be a case of wrongful and illegal ·subletting
without any written consent as the consent must necessarily be con;
sidered to have stood revoked on the expiry of the month of April.
Mr. Mehta has drawn our attention to clauses 1 and 14 of the rent
note and· has argued that the said clauses clearly indicate that the
contract of tenancy was valid only for the month of April and the
,

MAllAlllR PRASAb v. st!RINbEll KAUR (A.N. Sen, J.) 611
\,dthority of subletting was also only valid for the said month and on
A
•
of
expiry the said month the tenant Wll,S to make over vacant posses-
sion to the owner of the premises in the original, condition, It is
his argument that the contract of tenancy clearly contemplates that'
!here will be no sub-tenants in the premises on the expiry of the
monfh of April. Mr. Mehta submits that existence of any sub-
tenants in the premises after the month of, April, whether sub- B
tenants were inducted in the month of April or thereafter, brings
the case within the mischief of S.13 (2) (ii) (a) and renders the tenant
liable to eviction on the ground of illegal sub-letting; It is his ,submi-
ssion that if there be any sub-tenants in occupation or possession of
any, portion of the said premises after the co11tractual tenancy had
come to an end the subletting must be held to be without the written
c
consent of the landlord and as such wr:>ngful and illegal to enable
the landlord to evict the tenant on the ground of such subletting.
Mr. Mehta has submitted that this view which has been consistently
held by the High Court of P¥njab and Haryana, bas also been
followed by the Hi_gh Court in the instant case. In support of this
D
submission Mr. Mehta has referred to the decision in the case of'
Kartar Singh and Others v. Tarlok Singh and Others(') which has_
•been referred by the/learned Judge in the judgment under ·appeal.
Mr. Mehta has also relied on the decisions of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of Shri Kidar Nath v. Smt. Kartar
Kumar,(') and also in the case of Gurdas Ram v. Hans. Raj.(') E
According fo Mr. Mehta, this view has held the field in Punjab
and Haryana all the~e years and this is the settied law in the State.
Mr. Mehta further submits that as sub-tenants have continued to

--
remain in possession after the month of April, the subletting must
•,
be held to be without any written consent and illegal to furnish a
valid ground for the eviction of the tenant and all the cour.ts inclu- F
ding the High Court have properly ordered the eviction of the
• tenant.

Mr. Mehta has next contended that in the instant case sub-
letting of a bed room in the fiat portion and also of the barsati G
portion had been done by the tenant in the month of May, 1974 as
\
found by the Rent Controller after the remand of the issue by this
Court to the Rent Controller. Mr. Mehta submits that the Rent

(I) [1973) P.L.R. 424. n·
(2) [1969] 71 P.L.R. 186.
(3) [1974) Rent Control Journal, Short Notes of cases p, 1.'
,

~U!>ltl!Mll cotJkt REl>oktS tl98~J 3 s.c.k

A Controller had correctly come to the· conclusion on the evidence on
record after allowing the parties opporfunity of adducing further
evidence.' Mr. Mehta has argued that as the tenant had sub-let in
the month of May after the expiry of the period of tenancy, the
subletting must be held to be illegal . and wrongful as the consent in
writing by the landlady contained in the renl note was only for the
B month of April. '

Mr. Mehta argues that on the expiry of the month of April
when the contractual tenan_cy .comes \o an end and the tenant conti-
nues to remain in possession by virtue of the provisions of the Act,
the tenant does not enjoy any· power or authority to sub'let, even if
c such authority had been granted to the tenant to sublet during the
period of contractual tenancy. It is the argument of Mr. Mehta
that on the expiry of the contractual tenancy, the terms and condi·
tions on the basis of which the tenancy had been created, come to
an end and the statutory tenant who may enjoy protection ·against
eviction by virtue of the statute does not have any authority to
D induct a~y sub-tenant. In support of this contention Mr. Mehta has ,
referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Anand Nivas (P)
Ltd. v. Anandji Ka/yanji f:edhi & Ors.(') and he has relied on the
·following observations at pp. 917 : ..

"A statutory tenant is, as we have already observed, a
E person who on determination of his contractual right, is
permitted to remain in occupation so long· as he observes
and performs the conditions of the tenancy and pays the
standard rent and permitted increases. His personal right
of occupation is incapable of being transferred or assigned
and he having no interest in the property there is no estate
F
on which subletting may operate."
•
Mr. Mehta has commented that this decision of this Court was not
. considered by this Court in the case of Damadi Lill and Ors. v.
Parasram-and Ors.(supra).
G .
. M~. Mehta bas_ further argued tbat it is well settled that mere
acceptance of rent on the determination of the contractual tenancy
by effiux of time or otherwise does not in the absence of some\hing
more have the effect of creating a fresh tenancy or continuing the
H J
(I) [1964] 4 S.C.R. 892 ..
MAHABIR PRASAD v. SURINDER KAUR (A.N. Sen, J.) 623
·.. I
'
contractual 'tenancy afready dete.rmined; and it is his argument that A
ii cannot be said tbat a fresh tenancy was created or the tenancy
• ·was allowed to .continue on the expiry of the month of April merely
. because the lan.dlady had accepted the rent from the tenant
on . the expiry of the period_ of the tenancy after the month of
April. ,.
• B
.1

Mr. Mehta, therefore, submits that in the imtant case the
order for eviction has been rightly passed and this appeal should be
dismissed.

Before we proceed to consider the main q'uestion involved in c
this appeal, namely, whether tlie existence of sub,tenants in tbe premi-"
ses after the expiry of the term of contractual tenancy, necessarily ren~
ders the subletting illegal and furnishes a ground for eviction within
the meaning of S. 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act, we propose to
dispose of the other questi11n as to whether there was any subletting
by tbe tenant in the month of May. On a careful consideration of D
the report of the Rent Controller on the issue remitted to him by
this Court, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Rent Con-
.troller that the tenant had sub-let one 'bed room in the flat portion
: and· the .barsati portion in the month of May, 1974 js. not justified,
as there.was no proper evidence- or material before the Rent Con-
troller to come to the said !hiding. This finding·of the Rent controller E
is bas"d essentially on the tape-recorded conversation between the te-
nant the husband of the landlapy. Tape recorded conversation can only
be relied upon as corroborative evidence of conversation deposed
by any of the parties to the conversation and in the absence of
evidence of any such conversation, the tape recorded conversation is
indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. In the instant
F
case, there was no evide~ce of any" such conversation between the
tenant and the husband of the landlady; and in the absence of any
' such conversation, the tape-recorded conversation could be no pro-
per evidence. We may further add that the tape-recorded conver-
sation, even if the ·same could be relied upon, would b~ of no
G
particular heip to the landlady, as the tape-recorded conver-
sation clearly indicates that the landlady on the expiry of the term
of tenancy had not merely accepted the rent but had manifested
the intention of continuing the tenancy, notwithstading the expiry
of the terms; and the tape· recorded conversation goes to show that H
the husband of the landlaoy ~as asking the tenant to induct suitable
persons as sub-tenants under him.
624 SUPREME COlTRT REPORTS (1982] 3 s.c.tt.
A
As there is no proper evidence to show that any sub-tenant was
inducted after tbe expiry of the contractual period of tenancy, it
does not become becessary for us to consider whether the· tenant ••
who; on the detemination of the contractual tenancy, continues to
remain in possession by virtue of the provisions of the statute as
statutory tenant, is entitled to sub-Jet and he continues to remain in
8
possession on the same terms and conditions on which he became a
tenant.

The CruJ( of the question, therefore, is whether the subletting
by the tenant with the written consent of landlord during the
c currency of the tenancy becomes unlawful and·illegal on the deter- .-~
mination of the tenancy and furnishes a ground for eviction within
the meaning of S. 13(2) (ii) (a) of the Act. ·

S. 13(2) (ii) (a) which we have earlier set out lays down that if
D a tenant after the commencement of the Act has without writte·n
consent of the landlord transferred his right under the lease or sublet
the entire building or any portion thereof, the tenant shall be liable
to be evicted on the ground of such subletting. The requirement
of the section, therefore, is that after the commencement of the Act
there has to be subletting by the tenant without the written
E consent of the landlord to enable the landlord to recover possession
. of the premises on the ground of subletting. It, therefore, necessa-
rily follows that if after the commencement of the Act, the tenant
has sublet with the written consent of the landlord, such subletting
will not furnish any ground or cause of action for the eviction of the
tenant by the landlord. It is to be noted that after the tenant has
F ·lawfully sublet with the written consent of the landlord, the sub-ten•
ant becomes a lawful sub-tenant; and as su.ch' he becomes a 'tenant'
within the meaning of the Act under the tenant as his landlord and
contil)ues to enjoy all the protection available to a 'tenant' ·under
the Act and the tenant who inducts such sub-tenant is not entit-
G led to evict him as landlord of the sub-tenant except in accor-
dance with provisions of .the Act. As the tenant enjoys protection
against eviction in terms of the provisions of the Act and is not
liable to be evicted except in accordance with the provisions of the
Act notwithstanding determination of his tenancy by the landlord,
H the sub-tenant lawfully inducted equai!y enjoys the same protection
a8ainst eviction afforded to a tenant by the Act; and the sub-tenant

l·_
MAHABIR PRASRi> v. SURINDER ltAUR (A.N. Sen, J.) 625
A
can only be evicted in accordance with the provisions of the Act in
th'e same way as a tenant can be evicted. In spite of the sub·
• tenancy being determined by the tenant as his landlord, the sub-
tenant by virtue of the protection against eviction afforded to him
by the Act is entitled to continue in possession of the portion let out
to him by the tenant as his landlord; and it is just not possible
• B
for the tenant as landlord to get rid of any sub-tenant at his
will.

In the instant case, the tenant had the authority to sublet and
the written consent, as required by the statute, had been given by c
the landlady. In terms of the authority granted to the tenant and
with the consent in writing of the landlady, the tenant had inducted
sub-tenants in the month of April, when the contractual tenancy
admittedly subsisting. The subletting by the tenant in the instant
case could, therefore, afford no tground to the landlady or furnish
any cause of action for her to evict the tenant on the ground of D
subletting on the basis of the provisions contained in S. 13 (2) (ii)
(a) of the Act. The sub-tenants lawfully inducted came to be in
lawful possession of the portions let out to them by the tenant with
the authority and consent in writing of the landlady and such sub·
letting afforded a complete safeguard to the tenant against eviction
and would not con:ie within the mischief of sec. 13 (2) (ii) (a) of the E
Act. We have already held that the creation of any sub-tenancy in
the month of· May is not borne out by a·ny proper evidence on
recoi\I. The case of the landlady that there was any sub-letting
on the expiry of the month of April without the written consent or

- the landlady has not been established. In the instant case, the
tenant has sublet with the written consent of the landlady in the
month of April and has not sublet any portion on the expiry of the
month of April. The argument of the learned counsel for the land·
lady that on the expiry of the month of April, the consent of the
F

landlady in writing stands withdrawn is of no consequences. In
the instant case, the tenant has sublet in the month of April, 1974, G
when admittedly the written consent of the landlady was'there. The
continuance in possession of such subtenants in the portions lawfully
let out to them on the expiry of the month of April does not amount
to or have th.e effect of any fresh sub· letting by the tenant on the
expiry of the month of April; and, it cannot be said that the tenant H
"has sublet" afresh on the expiry of the month of April. The right
'of possession that the sub-tenao\$ Qajoy on the basi$ of lawful iqduc·
.626 SUPREME cou1n R!lPOllTS (1982) 3 s.c.R.

A tion as s.ub-tenants is assured to the sub-tenants 11s a "tenant"
within .the meaning of the Act. As a tenant in spite of the determi-
nation of his tenancy con.tinues the right to remain in possession as •
a statutory tenant and enjoys the protection against eviction by
. '
. virtue of the provisions contained in the statute, a sub-tenant who
is lawfully inducted, is also recognised by the st!l(ute to be a "tenant'
B within the meaning of the Act and he must necessarily enjoy the
protection ligainst e.viction afforded to a tenant bY. the Act. A
lawful sub-letting on the basis of the provisions of the Act does not
become unlawful merely because the contractual tenancy of the
tenant comes to an end. A. tenant incurs the liability to be evicted,
c - if the tenant after the commencement of the Act sub-lets without the
written consent of the landlord; and the tenant who bas·la~fully
sublet with the written consent of the landlord must necessarily
enjoy immunity from the process of eviction on that ground. Sub-
letting lawfully done with the written consent of the landlord does
not become unlawful merely on the ground that the contractual
D tenancy bas come to an end. Sub-letting to constitute a valid ground
for eviction must be without the consent in writing of the land-
lord at the time when. the tenant rnb-let_s any portion to the sub-
tenant.

E. A sub-letting by the tenant with the consent in writing of the
landlord does not become unlawful on the expiry of the contractual
tenancy of the tenant, · unless there is any fresh sub-letting by the
ten3nt without the written consen~ of the landlord. Mere continua-
nce in possession of a sub-tenant lawfully inducted does not amount
to any fresh or further sub:letting. We are, therefore, satisfied that
F in the instant case the terlant has not sub-let any portion without the
written corlsent of the landlady after the commencement of the Act.
As the tenant· has not sub-let any portion after the commencement
of the Act without the written consent of the landlady, th.e landlady
does not have any proper ground for the eviction of the tenant on·
-
the ground of sub-letting within the meaning of S. 13 (2) (ii) (a).
G Mere continuance of possession bY, the sub-tenants lawfully inducted
by the tenant with the written consent of the landlady contained in
rent note does not afford any ground to the landlady for eviction of
the tenant on the ground of sub-letting, as the tenant bas not sub-let
after che commencement of the Act any portion without the consent
··,II in writing of the landlady.
MAHABIR PRASAI> V. SURINDBR KAUR (A.N. Sen, J.) 627

The appeal, therefore, succeeds. The Judgment or the High A
Court affirming the decision of the lower courts and the order of
eviction, are hereb¥ set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed with
costs.

P.B.R. Appeal allowed. 8
•

~-

.. '

'
"""'
~

' '
'