Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In Mangaldas Girdhardas vs. Govindlal Ishwarlal (1945) 47 BOMLR 118, Hon'ble Bombay High Court observed as under :­ "When there is landlord and a tenant and the premises are sub­let, there is neither privity of contract nor estate between the landlord and the sub­ tenant."

RCT No. 76/13 & 77/13 Mohd. Aslam vs. Mohd. Ashfaq (through LRs) Page10of15 It was further observed that :­ "under the ordinary law of landlord and tenant the petitioner, who is a sub­tenant, is not a necessary party to this suit by the superior landlord for the eviction of his tenant. The superior landlord is entitled to eject his tenant and the sub­tenant deriving his title under the tenant is also liable to be ejected in execution of the decree."

In Rup Chand Gupta vs. Raghuvanshi Private Limited & Anr. 1964 AIR 1889, respondent no.2 was lessee of respondent no.1 and appellant was the sub­lessee. Respondent no.1 filed a suit against respondent no.2 for eviction in which the appellant was not impleaded as a party. On omission to implead the appellant as a party, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under :­ "that the law does not require that the sub­lessee need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that in all cases possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub­lessee as a party to the suit, the object, of the landlord is to eject the sub­lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub­le ssee. This may act harshly on the sub­lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the subleases the law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act."