Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(i) Title Execution Case No. 10 of 1988 was started by the property Company for executing the decree passed in Title Suit No. 66 of 1977 and writ of delivery of possession was issued in respect of the entire premises including the 'B' Schedule property.

(j) The RSI Limited was not a party in Title Suit No. 66 of 1977 and the instant application was filed by them challenging the execution of the decree against them.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant RSI Limited made a forceful in respect of the contention that RSI Limited is a lawful sub tenant under the Property Company Inasmuch as the tenant McDonell in terms of Clause 3 of the Lease Agreement sublet the Schedule 'B' property to the RSI Limited. It is argued that the consent in writing as required under Section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 is contained in the deed of lease Itself and such sub-letting in favour of RSI Limited by McDonell was during 'the subsistence of the contract or lease was undoubtedly a valid subletting. It is also argued that the said deed of lease having been executed with the knowledge of provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956, the opposite party No. 1, Property Company is not competent to question the same.

10. It is argued that the above-mentioned facts practically distinguished the judgment of the apex Court (Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. v. H.C. Sharma and Ors.) It is also pointed out that the principles laid down in the case of Shantilal Rampuria and Ors. v. Vega Trading Corporation and Ors. is also not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as subletting in the cited decision was done after the expiry of contract of lease. It is also argued that none of these judgments had decided upon nor had made any observation in respect of consent in writing contained in the deed of lease itself and subletting and/or parting with possession during the tenure of contract of lease. It is further argued that Section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 does not enjoin the consent in writing should be obtained by the tenant from the landlord subsequent to creation of tenancy as envisaged under Section 13(1) (k) of the Act. It is pointed out that there is nothing in Section 14 warranting taking of consent in writing subsequent to the creation of tenancy or subsequent to the contract of tenancy between the landlord and the tenant.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956 does not totally prohibit subletting. But it restricts the right of subletting by the tenant. Since the landlord in this case with clear knowledge of the provisions of the Act gave the consent in writing in the contract of tenancy itself, that is, in the deed of lease and when the tenant, subsequent to the written contract of tenancy inducted a sub-tenant, it is to be construed as a valid subletting with previous consent in writing of landlord as envisaged in the provision of Section 14 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act 1956. It is added that since the previous consent in writing is contained in the deed of lease itself, a second consent in writing is not required during the subsistence of contract of tenancy.