Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: assignment lease in M.B.K. Enterprises And Ors vs Saidpur Jute Co. Ltd. And Ors on 12 November, 2024Matching Fragments
25) Mr. Ankhad would further submit that unlawful subletting by Defendant Nos.3 to 7 in breach of Clause-2(i) of the lease-deed is clearly established. That the Trial and the Appellate Court have correctly held that Clauses to the lease-deed cannot be interpreted to mean that sublessee is entitled to further license the premises. He would submit that correct interpretation of Clause-2(i) of the lease-deed is permission to grant sublease only once and the (1979) 4 SCC 214 (2008) 2 SCC 728 2003 SCC OnLine Ker 322 1952 SCC OnLine Mad 130 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC same cannot be interpreted to mean that the sublessee can further assign the leasehold rights. He would submit that reference in the Lease Deed to the word 'lessor' includes 'assignees' but for 'lessee', it would include only 'permitted assignees'. That this is not a case of assignment of lease and only lessee is permitted to sublet, which is why only first subletting is allowed and subsequent subletting is not permissible as per true and correct interpretation of Clause-2(i). That Clause-2(i) is a contract between the commercial parties including restrictive clauses and the same cannot be expanded.
(2)The prohibition against the sub-letting of the whole or any part of the premises which have been let to any tenant, and against the assignment or transfer in any other manner of the interest of the tenant therein, contained in sub-section (1), shall, subject to the provisions of this sub-section be deemed to have had no effect before the 1st day of February, 19731, in any area in which this Act was in operation before such commencement; and accordingly, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or in the judgment, decree or order a Court, any such sub-lease, assignment or transfer of any such purported sub-lease, assignment or transfer in favour of any person who has entered into possession, despite the prohibition in sub-section (1) as purported sub-lessee, assignee or transferee and has continued in a possession on the date aforesaid shall be deemed to be valid and effectual for all purposes, and any tenant who has sub-let any premises or part thereof, assigned or transferred any interest therein, shall not be liable to eviction under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 13.The provisions aforesaid of this sub-section shall not affect in any manner the operation of sub-section (1) after the date aforesaid.
nothing in this clause shall be deemed to authorise a tenant having an untransferable right of occupancy, the farmer of an estate in respect of which default has been made in paying revenue, or the lessee of an estate under the management of a Court of Wards, to assign his interest as such tenant, farmer or lessee;
(emphasis added)
43) Relying on clause (j) of Section 108, it is contended by Revision Applicants that Transfer of Property Act confers right on the 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC lessee to transfer whole or part of his interest in the property and transferee of such interest can again transfer it. I am unable to agree with the contention of the Revision Applicants that Defendant Nos.3 to 7, who are sub-lessees, had right to further sublease the suit premises. In my view the contention about sub-lessee's right to further sublet the premises arises out of skewed and myopic reading of the covenants of the Deed of Lease. Clause (2) uses the word 'permitted assigns', the emphasis being on the word 'permitted'. Furthermore, while describing the expression 'lessor', the Lease Deed include Lessor's successors in title and 'assigns' whereas while describing the term 'lessee' the Lease Deed uses the word 'permitted assigns' and not merely 'assignees'. Thus, the only 'permitted assigns' under the Lease Deed would be included in the term 'lessee' and not 'every successive assign', as sought to be suggested by Revision Applicants. In my view, clause 2(i) and 3(d) of the Lease Deed permits assignment and subletting of the demised premises only once. There is nothing in the entire Lease Deed which permits the sublettee to further sublet the suit premises. The latter part of Clause 2(i) and 3(d) relieving the lessee of its liability upon execution of sublease does not mean that the sub-lessee becomes entitled to further assign or sublet the suit premises. True it is that upon execution of sublease or assignment, the sub-lessee would step into the shoes of lessee for the purpose of observance of covenants of agreement, which is clear from the use of the words 'permitted assigns' in description of parties as well as in the opening part of Clause 2 of the Deed of Lease. However, merely because a sub-lessee steps into the shoes of lessee (for limited purpose of observance of obligations under the agreement), the same does not mean that the sub-lessee has been conferred with a right to create further sub-lease in favour of a third party. The words 'The Lessees 12 November 2024 Neeta Sawant CRA-120-2023-CRA-215-2023-FC (for itself and its permitted assigns ....)' appearing in the opening portion of Clause 2 of the Lease-Deed are incorporated essentially to ensure that the sub-lessee of permitted assign does not claim absence of liability to observe the obligations under the lease deed. The intention behind incorporation of those words is not to create a right of further subletting on the sub-lessee. If there was any such intention, the same would have been expressed by parties in express words.
59) Judgment of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has been confirmed by the Apex Court in Jabal C. Lashkari and Ors. Versus. Official Liquidator and Ors. (supra) in which the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 12 and 24 as under:
12. The Division Bench of the High Court took note of the fact that the non obstante clause in Section 13 of the Rent Act only gave the said Section 13 an overriding effect over the other provisions of the Act. Section 13 was also made subject to the provisions of Section 15 of the Bombay Act. This is in contrast to Section 21 of the Karnataka Act which had an overriding effect over any other law or contract to the contrary. Section 15 which deals with the authority of the lessee to sub-lease or assign the leased rights/property, though, gives an overriding effect over any other law has been made subject to any contract to the contrary.