Trace Your Case

ANAND NIVAS (P) LTD V. ANANDJI KALYANJI PEDHI

Anand Nivas (Private) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi and Ors. AIR 1965 SC 414

ISSUE:

  • Whether a statutory tenant, who remains in possession of the premises after the expiration of a lease, has the legal authority to sub-let a portion of that premise?

RULE:

  • A statutory tenant has no interest in the premises occupied by him and has no estate to assign or transfer.
  • Bombay Rents and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, defines “tenant” to include statutory tenants, who remain in possession after the lease expiration.
  • Protection is given to tenants from eviction as long as they pay rent and comply with tenancy conditions, even after the lease has ended.

FACTS:

  • Maneklal Mafatlal was granted a lease for five years starting March 5, 1950.
  • After the lease expired, Mafatlal continued to occupy the premises under the protection of the Bombay Rent Control Act.
  • After the expiry of the lease period, the landlords filed for eviction and sought arrears of rent, obtaining a decree in June 1960. During the eviction proceedings, Mafatlal sub-let part of the premises to the appellant.
  • The landlords sought to evict both Mafatlal and the appellant.
  • The appellant claimed that upon Mafatlal’s lease termination, it became a direct tenant of the sub-let portion under Section 14 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act of 1947 (“Act”).
  • The appellant filed an injunction suit in the Court of Small Causes to restrain the landlords from enforcing the decree. The Court dismissed this. The Gujarat High Court also ruled against the appellant, stating that after the expiration of the lease, Mafatlal had no authority to sub-let as he had lost all interest in the premises.
  • The case was appealed to the Supreme Court via special leave.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that the Act does not allow for a statutory tenant to sublet the premises.
  • The Act does not confer upon a statutory tenant the right to enforce the benefits of the terms and conditions of the original tenancy.
  • A statutory tenant has no estate or interest in the premises occupied by him. When there is no right in the premises, there can be no subletting. Hence, Maneklal as a statutory tenant had no right to sublet the premises.
  • The Court clarified that the appellant acquired no right of a tenant on the determination of the tenant’s right by virtue of Section 14 of the Act.
  • The appeal failed and was dismissed.