Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub-lessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lessee, but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sub-lease. The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act. The mere fact that the defendant agrees with the plaintiff that if a suit is brought he would not defend it, would not necessarily prove collusion. It is only if this agreement is done improperly in the sense that a dishonest purpose is intended to be achieved that they can be said to have colluded.

Therefore, pursuant to eviction decree being passed, in ejection execution case filed by landlord, in which sub-tenant filed application praying for setting aside decree passed in eviction suit, allegation of fraud and collusion need not be enquired into. Such an allegation of fraud and collusion in obtaining eviction becomes purely academic, and non- consideration of the question of fraud and collusion does not in any manner detract the legality of eviction decree.

All the applicants were required to give attornment of tenancy within a period of 2 years from the date of commencement of the 1997 Act. Even if it is assumed that the creation of sub-tenancy in their favour under the 1956 Act was duly ratified by the Judgement-debtor on an assumption that the Judgement-debtor till 1991 was under the control of the Sens, the mandatory requirement of giving notice has not been fulfilled. The documents disclosed by the applicants in this proceeding would clearly show that the applicants were aware of the interest of the decree-holder in the suit premises. Even if a benefit of doubt is given to the applicants that they were unaware of the interest of the decree-holder in the suit premises prior to the orders passed in the Writ Petition, even then the period of two years of giving notice had expired long back.