Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence of the parties and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to the effect that the defendant No. 1 was charging any amount as premium from defendants 2 to 4 or that it cannot be said that the property in question was subjected to sub-letting by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4. It was specifically found by the trial court that part of the open land, which defendant No. 1 is occupying as a tenant, was given for five days to the dancing party. Defendant No. 3 was the organizer of the programme and for that, temporary construction of cloth and wooden material was made. It is interesting to note that the aforesaid entertainment programme was organized by defendant No. 1 on 25th October, 1982 and within four days, i.e. on 29th October, 1982, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit on the ground of sub-letting and panchnama was made on the very day. It is no doubt true that as per the Panchnama, there was a wooden partition, and there was a tent on the aforesaid place for the purpose of entertainment programme, but simply by the aforesaid erection of the temporary construction of tent etc., it cannot be said that there was sub-letting by defendant No. 1 in favour of either defendant No. 2, 3 or 4. Looking to the aforesaid evidence on record and especially also having found that there is no evidence that defendant No. 1 was charging any rent from defendants 2 to 4 by way of consideration the trial court found that there is no sub-letting as possession cannot be said to have been transferred by defendant No. 1 to rest of the defendants. The trial court, accordingly, dismissed the suit.

10. I have gone through the evidence on record and I have heard the arguments of both the learned Advocates. The question which requires consideration is whether the aforesaid act of defendant No. 1 in organizing dancing programme in the suit premises and for that purpose, allowing defendants 2 to 4 to use the suit property for performing the programme would constitute sub-letting. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid dancing programme had continued in the suit premises for five days and, thereafter, it was closed. It is the say of defendant No. 1 in his evidence that he was giving fixed amount to defendant No. 3 for performing the said programme every day upto 5 days and whatever might be the collection of the programme for 5 days, defendant No. 1 was taking the same. There is nothing in the evidence to show and even it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No. 1 himself was getting any amount from defendants 2 to 4 for giving premises for the said programme. As stated earlier, the plaintiff has not filed the suit on the ground of change of user and only ground which has been canvassed is about sub-letting and, therefore, even if defendant No. 1 has engaged himself in business for a few days in the suit premises by giving the part of the land for organizing the programme, it cannot constitute sub-letting as required by Section 13(1)(e) of the Rent Act. The learned appellate Judge has considered the admission on the part of defendant No. 1 to the effect that the possession of the premises was handed over to defendant No. 3. However, learned appellate Judge has not considered the fact that what defendant No. 1 has stated in the evidence is that for the purpose of the aforesaid programme, defendant No. 3, who was to perform the programme, was handed over the possession. It is not an admission on the part of defendant No. 1 that he has handed over the possession of the suit premises by way of transferring his interest in the suit land. The appellate Judge has, therefore, completely misread the evidence of defendant No. 1 in reaching the conclusion that there was an admission on the part of defendant No. 1 about the sub-letting. The evidence on record only proves that there was erection of `Mandap' or `Pandal', with one wooden window for collection of tickets and that entertainment programme / dancing programme was organized in the suit premises, but that does not mean that defendant No. 1 has parted with his legal possession, with an intention to create sub-tenancy in favour of defendants 2 to 4. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence to show that even defendant No. 1 was collecting any amount as a premium from defendant No. 3 for allowing him to use the suit property. On the contrary, the evidence is that defendant No. 1 was giving Rs. 200/- to defendant No. 3 for the purpose of performing the programme. There is nothing on record to show that there was any restriction in the Rent Note that the tenant cannot organize any entertainment programme in the house or in the rented premises. As a matter of fact, the landlord, having inducted the tenant in the rented premises, cannot restrict the reasonable use of the property by the tenant and defendant No. 1 could not have been prevented to make use of the same or even organize some party in the rented premises or entertainment programme unless by such programme, there is any damage to the rented premises for which there is a separate ground available in the Act for getting decree for eviction. Similarly, if the premises is given for one purpose and if it is used for another purpose, there is separate ground in the Rent Act to file a suit for eviction on the said ground, but, in the instant case, the only ground, which was pressed into service, was the ground of sub-letting and the evidence on record can never be said to be constituting any ground for passing a decree on the ground of sub-letting. As stated earlier, the appellate Judge has committed an error in considering the aforesaid evidence of the tenant as an admission on his part. There is absolutely no admission about sub-letting at all. The appellate court has failed to consider that the premises in question was temporarily given and that too, only for five days for entertainment programme. The appellate court, therefore, has completely misread the evidence in coming to the conclusion that defendant No. 1 has allowed the premises to be used for business, and for business purpose, it is transferred to defendants 2 to 4, who are strangers. If the things are to be considered from that angle that even if the rented premises is used for few days for some religious function and for that purpose, some Pandal or Mandap is erected, then also, it can be said that the tenant has transferred his interest in favour of a third party, who is to perform such religious ceremony or some musical programme, etc. In the instant case, except the fact that Mandap or Pandal is erected, with some partition in between, there is no further evidence to show that defendant No. 1 has parted with the possession with an intention to transfer his possession to defendants 2 to 4. There is absolutely nothing to show that he had even charged any amount towards consideration for giving possession. As a matter of fact, at the most, it can be said that defendant No. 1 had done some business for five days for getting some income by conducting entertainment programme, for which he gave contract to defendant No. 3. However, looking to the evidence on record, it can never be said that defendant 2 or 3 have ever acquired the status of a sub-tenant, which may create sub-lease by head tenant in favour of the sub-tenant. The learned appellate Judge, therefore, has completely misread the evidence and hence, merely relied upon the so-called admission of the tenant and panchnama in question. The learned Judge has observed in the judgment in paragraph 17 that the temporary assignment of interest in favour of the organizers of the entertainment programme in the suit land is there. However, it is pertinent to note that it can ne. assignment of interest, even temporarily, by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants 2 and 3. As a matter of fact, defendant No. 1 has, all throughout, retained the possession with him, but temporarily, allowed the organizers of the programme to conduct the show and as possession is given only for that purpose, it cannot be said that defendant No. 1 had parted with possession in their favour. Mr. Shah for the petitioner argued that, at the most, it can be said that defendant No. 1 allowed defendant No. 3 to remain on the suit land for few days by way of licence for performing a programme only and that too, on behalf of defendant No. 1.