Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The learned Lord Justice also gave another reason for rejecting the line of argument that the right to sublet which a tenant had under the ordinary law of landlord and tenant constituted one of the terms and conditions of his original contract of tenancy and was therefore incorporated into the subsequent statutory tenancy:
And it may be further noted that even if the statutory tenant had the same estate as he previously had as a contractual tenant that alone would not avail the sub-tenant. For a contractual tenant though entitled under his contract to sublet part obviously cannot give his sub-tenant an estate exceeding in duration his own estate.

8. That takes me to a consideration of Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act. The argument of Mr. I.M. Nanavnty and Mr. J.M. Shah based on Section 13 was that this section made it a ground of eviction that the tenant had since the coming into operation of the Rent Act unlawfully sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein and that since the word tenant included also a statutory tenant by reason of the definition of tenant contained in Section 5(11) it was clear by necessary implication that a statutory tenant was entitled to sublet the whole or part of the premises if he did so lawfully that is without committing any breach of the conditions of the tenancy or without contravening the provisions of Section 15. The logical consequence of this line of argument which was pressed for my acceptance was that if there was no condition in the original contract of tenancy prohibiting subletting of the whole or part of the premises and if the subletting was covered by the provisions of Section 15(2) or if the original contract of tenancy empowered subletting the statutory tenant was entitled to sublet the whole or part of the premises. This line of argument was sought to be supported by reference to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Roe v. Russell (supra). I shall have occasion to deal with this case in some detail a little later but suffice it to state for the present that this case was decided mainly on Section 4(1)(h) of the Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the English Act of 1923) which provided:

The history of the legislation with regard to the right of the tenant to sublet also throws considerable light on the construction of Section 14 The Bombay Rent Restriction Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1939) was brought into force in the then Province of Bombay on 19th June 1939 in order to restrict the rights of a landlord to recover more than the standard rent and permitted increases and to recover possession of the demised premises from the tenant. There was no provision in that Act in regard to subletting and a contractual tenant could therefore sublet if there was no prohibition against subletting in the contract of tenancy. There was admittedly no power express or implied given to a statutory tenant to sublet. That Act continued in force upto 31 March 1948. The sub-tenancies which came into existence between 19 June 1939 and 31st March 1948 were therefore sub-tenancies created only by contractual tenants. That Act however applied only to premises the standard rent of which did not exceed Rs. 80/- per month and that too only in certain limited areas. Then came the Bombay Rent Restriction Order 1942 which applied to premises the standard rent of which exceeded Rs. 80/- per month in areas to which the Act of 1939 was applicable and in other areas to premises the standard rent of which did not exceed Rs. 250/- per month. There was originally no provision as regards sub-letting in the Bombay Rent Restriction Order 1942 but it was amended twice with a view to control the right of the contractual tenant to sublet the whole or part of the premises. These amendments are however irrelevant since the Bombay Rents Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act VII of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1944) replaced the Bombay Rent Restriction Order 1942 in its application to various areas with retrospective effect. Section 10 of the Act of 1944 provided as follows:

Turning to Section 15 I find that the argument based on this section is even weaker than the argument based on Sections 13(1)(e) and 14. Section 15 as it stood prior to its amendment in clear and unmistakable terms prohibited the tenant from subletting the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest in the premises. Section 15 enacted a prohibition on the tenant to do that which he might otherwise be entitled to do. If the tenant was entitled to sublet the whole or any part of the premises let to him or to assign or transfer his interest in the premises Section 15 declared that the tenant shall not be entitled to do so notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. Apart altogether from other considerations it is difficult to see how a section which is prohibitory in nature and which seeks to impose a fetter on the right of the tenant to sublet the whole or any part of the premises or to assign or transfer his interest in the premises can be construed as conferring a right by necessary implication. Even if the word tenant in Section 15 be read as including a statutory tenant Section 15 as it stood prior to its amendment prohibited the statutory tenant from subletting the whole or any part of the premises or from assigning or transferring in any other manner his interest in the premises. To read the section as empowering the statutory tenant to sublet-when in terms clear and explicit it says that the statutory tenant shall not be entitled to sublet-would be to contradict the very terms of the section. I know of no method of construction of a section by way of contradiction of it. Section 15 prior to its amendment therefore in my opinion merely imposed a prohibition and if a tenant was entitled to sublet or to assign or transfer Section 15 made it unlawful for him to do so. The power to sublet assign or transfer could not therefore be founded in Section 15. Now a statutory tenant admittedly could not assign or transfer and as I have already shown a statutory tenant also could not sublet under any other provision of the Rent Act. It is therefore apparent that the word tenant in Section 15 referred only to a contractual tenant and the section operated to prohibit only the right of a contractual tenant to sublet or to assign or transfer. But apart from this consideration the words Jet to him provide a very cogent reason for coming to the conclusion that the tenant referred to in Section 15 is a contractual tenant. The tenant is prohibited by Section 15 from subletting the whole or part of the premises let to him. Now obviously for reasons which I have already discussed there can be no letting by a landlord to a statutory tenant and it cannot be said of a statutory tenant that the premises which he is holding as a statutory tenant are let to him. These words are in my opinion applicable only to a contractual tenant. The tenant who is prohibited from subletting under Section 15 must therefore be a contractual tenant. The same conclusion is also reached on a consideration of the expression sublet. I have already pointed out that the expression sublet in the absence of any artificial meaning must receive its well-known meaning as a legal term and can therefore be applicable only to a contractual tenant. The words assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein also fortify the same conclusion. I am therefore of the opinion that the word tenant in Section 15 as it stood unamended referred only to a contractual tenant and did not extend to a statutory tenant. Now the same question arises in regard to Section 15. Does the amendment make any difference to the interpretation of the section? In my opinion it does not make the slightest difference. The prohibition against sub-lettings assignments and transfers which was contained in Section 15 as it stood prior to its amendment continues to remain even after the amendment with this modification that the prohibition is now made subject to any contract to the contrary. If therefore there is any contract to the contrary the tenant can sublet assign or transfer. The very use of the words subject to any contract to the contrary emphasizes the view I am inclined to take namely that the sub-lettings assignments and transfers contemplated by Section 15 are by a contractual tenant. These words obviously cannot apply so as to permit the statutory tenant to sublet assign or transfer. It is difficult to see how the contract of tenancy can provide that the statutory tenant shall be entitled to sublet assign or transfer. I am therefore of the opinion that Section 15 after its amendment also does not contemplate any subletting assignment or transfer by a statutory tenant. The amendment merely legalises certain sub-tenancies assignments and transfers which were unlawful by reason of the provisions of Section 15 as it stood unamended and does not empower the tenant contractual or statutory to do that which he was not entitled to do apart from the provisions of Section 15. The same view I find has been taken by Tarkunde J. in Special Civil Application No. 1685 of 1957. This decision is of course binding on me but even if the matter were res integra I would have been inclined to reach the same decision for the reasons mentioned above. No implication can therefore be raised from Section 15 in favour of the view that a statutory tenant is entitled to sublet./