Gopal Saran was a tenant. Gopal Saran had taken the premises on rent on the basis of oral tenancy the rent note. His shop was situated outside Delhi Gate, Udaipur, in the State of Rajasthan. Gopal Saran was also running the business of advertisement by way of display of various advertisements boards at various places in the city of Udaipur.
Satyanarayana (Landlord) had filed the suit for eviction of
the tenant Gopal Saran on three grounds that,
(i) The tenant had parted with possession of the
roof of the shop room by putting up an advertisement board
(ii) By putting up such advertisement board,
fixing the same on the roof of the said shop room with iron angles, Gopal Saran
had caused material alteration to the premises; and
(iii) The Gopal Saran had defaulted in payment of
rent. The trial court decreed the suit on the ground of default in payment of
rent, material alter action and subletting.
The trial court held
that the Gopal Saran had caused material alteration by fixing the board on the
roof had parted with possession of the roof by such fixing of the board and
committed default in payment of rent. A decree was passed against Gopal Saran for
causing material alteration and for parting with the possession of the roof but
no decree was passed by the trial court on ground of default because the
default was held by the Judge to be the first default.
Gopal Saran filed first
appeal against the passed by the trial court judgement and decree. By District
Judge allowed the appeal holding, inter alia, that by displaying the advertisement
board the Gopal Saran had not caused any material alteration of the premises
and display of such advertisements hoardings did not amount to parting with
possession of the roof of the premises. In default, on an analysis of the dates
of payment it was held that there was no default in payment of rent for six
months. The Trial Judge had held that the default was the first default there
could be no decree for eviction on this ground. So the District Judge would
have affirmed the findings of the Trial Court on the issue of default, there
could not have been a decree in the suit on the ground of default. The Gopal
Saran and Satyanarayana preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Section 13(1) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of
Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1950.
By clause (a), sub-section (1) of the section provides that out with standing
anything contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or
make any order, in favour of a landlord, evicting the tenant so long as he is
ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable under the
Act unless it is satisfied inter alia, that the tenant had not only paid but
also tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months. Sub-clause (b) of
subsection (1) of the section makes the tenant liable to eviction if he has
willfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises. Sub-clause
(e) tenant has assigned, sublet or parted with the possession of the whole or
any part of the premises without the permission of the landlord. The High Court
was passed the decree under section 13(1)(e) of the Act on the ground that the
Gopal Saran had parted with possession. The High Court's order of eviction
can't be upheld. As no question of non-payment has been found by the trial
court and the District Judge and there is no finding of any material alteration
the order for eviction can't be sustained. The appeal allowed and the order for
eviction is set aside.
This appeal is against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan. The quality, nature and degree of the occupation of the transferee and it cannot be either there was any assignment or sub letting or parting with possession to such a degree by permitting the hoarding that the tenant had lost interest. He was using the premises for his benefit. Unless the tenant has infarcted the prohibition of the Act, he is not liable to be evicted.
Post a Comment