Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) that the tenant has, since the coming into operation of this Act, unlawfully sublet the whole or part of the premises or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein;"

In this clause the expression "tenant" apparently-means a contractual tenant, for it authorises a landlord to recover possession of premises if the tenant has unlawfully assign- ed, transferred his interest in the premises or has unlaw- fully sublet the premises. A statutory tenant has no inte- rest in the premises occupied by him, and he has no estate to assign or transfer. To read the clause as meaning that an assignment or transfer of any premises which attracts liability to eviction would be only in respect of a con- tractual tenancy whereas subletting which invites that penalty may be in respect of tenancies-contractual and statutory alike, would be to attribute to the Legislature an intention to impute two different meanings to the expression " tenant" in cl. (e) of s. 13(1). By cl. (e) the Legislature has recognised the right of a landlord to re- cover possession if the tenant has without being so autho- rised by contract, sublet in whole or in part the premises, or assigned or transferred in any other manner his interest therein. The adverb "unlawfully" qualifies all the three verbs-sublet, assigned and transferred. That is clear from the terms of s. 15(1) which prohibits "subject to any con- tract to the contrary" subletting of premises or assignment or transfer of interest therein.

By cl. (1) of s. 15 all transfers and assignments of interest in the premises, and subletting of premises, by tenants are, subject to any contract to the contrary, made unlawful. The clause however saves contracts to the contrary and to be effective can operate only in favour of contractual tenants. A statutory tenant having no interest in the property, it was plainly unnecessary to prohibit transfer of what was ineffective. Nor can there be letting of the premises by a statutory tenant, for letting postulates a transfer of the right to enjoy property made for a certain time, express or implied, in consideration of price paid or promised and a statutory tenant has merely a personal right to resist eviction. Section 15(1) therefore applies only to contractual tenants. The proviso to the clause also furnishes an indication to that effect for the exemption which the Provincial Government may grant can only be in respect of leases or a class of lease.(. Sub- section(2) is in terms an exception to sub-s.(1). It provides that :

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of a Court or any contract. the bar against subletting, assignment or transfer of premises contained in subsection (1) or in any contract shall, in respect of such sub-lessees , assignees or transferees as have entered into possession despite the bar before the commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordi- nance, 1959 and as continue in possession at such commencement, have no effect and be deemed never to have had any effect."

There is abundant indication in the section that it applies to contractual tenancies alone. In the first instance it speaks of the interest of the tenant and determination of that interest. It then invests a sub-tenant to whom the premises have been lawfully sublet before the date of the Ordinance with the rights of a tenant of the landlord on the same terms and conditions as he would have held from the tenant if the tenancy had continued. The subletting to be lawful must be permitted by contract, or validated by sub-s. (2) of s. 15. The object of s. 14 is to protect sub- tenants. By that section forfeiture of the rights of the tenant in any of the contingencies set out in s. 13 does not in all cases destroy the protection to the sub-tenants. The protection which a sub-tenant is entitled to claim against his own landlord (that is the head tenant) becomes on determination of the head tenancy available to him against the head landlord, but the condition on which such a claim may be sustained is that there is a lawful subletting. A statutory tenant is, as we have already observed, a 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 on which subletting may operate. If it be assumed that a statutory tenant has the right of subletting, some very surprising consequences may ensue. A statutory tenant by parting with possession of the premises would forfeit all rights in the premises occupied by him, but he would still, if s. 14 is construed as suggested by the Company, be able to create an interest in the person inducted in the premises not derivatively but independently, for the statutory tenant had no interest in the premises and the protection granted by the statute is by the very act of transfer of possession extinguished. Again even though the sub-tenant of a statutory tenant may not be protected, because the bar against such subletting is not effectively removed by s. 15(2), he would still be entitled to claim the rights of a tenant under s. 14 on determination of the tenancy of the head tenant. Having regard to these considerations there can be little doubt that a sublessee from a statutory tenant under the Act acquires no right of a tenant in the premises occupied by him.