Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23) The Notification issued under the proviso to Section 15(1) is not aimed at facilitating tenants of commercial premises to transfer their tenancy rights behind the back of landlord. There is complete prohibition on tenants of residential premises from subletting their premises or grant of licenses after 1 February 1973. The tenant of residential premises transferring his tenancy rights to an outsider attracts the ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Bombay ___Page No.15 of 28___ 7 October 2024 Megha wp_6679_2003_fc.docx Rent Act. Apart from prohibition on transfer/assignment of tenancy rights, a tenant is not even permitted to bequeath his tenancy rights to a desired person. In respect of residential premises, limited protection extended by rent control legislation is to recognize tenancy rights of only such members of family, who reside with the tenant at the time of his death. In respect of commercial tenancies, transmission of tenancies was permitted under the Bombay Rent Act only in favour of member of tenant's family using the premises along with the tenant and in absence of such member, to the legal heir. Otherwise, there is complete prohibition on transfer, assignment or bequeathing of tenancy rights. Similar are the provisions under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Thus the rent control legislations do not permit assignment or transmission of tenancy rights in the name of desired person. If these prohibitions are borne in mind, the legislative intent behind incorporation of Proviso under Section 15(1) as well as the objective behind issuance of Notification dated 21 September 1948 becomes apparent. Objective is not to promote or encourage a commercial tenant to assign the tenanted premises to outsiders and profiteer therefrom.

24) As observed above, the object is only to ensure that genuine transfer of business by transferor entity to transferee entity does not result in loss of tenancy by attracting ground of subletting. In the present case however, Defendant No.1 -tenant, who was possibly on the verge of shutting his business, has ensured smooth transmission of tenancy in favour of a rank outsider by assigning his tenancy rights under the garb of assignment of business and has profiteered therefrom. Thus, what is done in the present case is that the tenancy rights in respect of the premises owned by landlady are assigned in favour of outsider by the tenant behind the back of landlady and ___Page No.16 of 28___ 7 October 2024 Megha wp_6679_2003_fc.docx without paying her any amount of consideration. Thus, at the expense of property owned by the landlady, the tenant has profiteered. The tenant has not only continued occupying the suit premises by paying paltry amount of rent and has enjoyed the benefits of rent control legislation, but when it came to return of the premises to landlady at the time of closure of business, the tenant has conveniently transferred and assigned his tenancy rights in favour of outsider for valuable consideration.

33) It otherwise becomes difficult to believe that a Sales Officer working in Mumbai in Indian Oil Corporation can think of commencing business in laundry by taking over the business of another entity. Defendant No.2 admitted that he was shown the suit premises through a broker. Engagement of broker for introduction of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to each other again gives rise to a presumption that the real nature of transaction is assignment of tenancy rights and not assignment of business in laundry. Defendant No.2 has not led any evidence as to why he was looking for a business of laundry. There is no evidence on record to indicate that he met any other launders or negotiated with them for taking over the business. Thus, the intention of Defendant No.2, right from inception, was not to take over the laundry business, but to invest in property. Furthermore, it has come in evidence that Defendant No.1 had two other laundries at other locations. This is not a case where the entire laundry business of Defendant No.1, operated at various outlets, is taken over by Defendant No.2. He has chosen to selectively purchase tenancy rights only in respect of the suit premises. With a view to ensure that ground of subletting is not attracted, the laundry equipment was maintained for some time in the premises. It is possible that even activities relating to laundry business could have ___Page No.23 of 28___ 7 October 2024 Megha wp_6679_2003_fc.docx been conducted by Defendant No.2 by continuing services of one of the employees of defendant No.1 for some time to dispel any allegation of subletting. However, if the entire nature of arrangement is taken into consideration, the inescapable conclusion that emerges is that the real transaction between the parties is assignment of tenancy rights and not the assignment of laundry business. The Appellate Court has erred in assuming that use of suit premises for sale of various other articles amounts to mere addition in business. The Appellate Court ought to have lifted the veil and found out the real nature of transaction.

34) As observed above, the objective behind issuance of Notification dated 21 September 1948 under Proviso to Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rent Act is not to encourage or permit assignment of tenancy rights in respect of commercial premises behind the back of landlord. What done in the present case is that property belonging to the landlady is conveniently assigned for valuable consideration by the tenant in favour of a rank outsider. The entire scene is choreographed by the tenant and purchaser behind the back of the landlady. This Court cannot turn a blind eye to such unlawful transaction by branding the same as transfer of a going concern and not assignment of tenancy rights.