A.S. SULOCHANA V. C. DHARMALINGAM (1987) 1 SCC 180: AIR 1987 SC 242

 

 

A.S. SULOCHANA V. C. DHARMALINGAM

(1987) 1 SCC 180: AIR 1987 SC 242

FACTS

The father of Appellant had granted a lease in favour of the father of Respondent, prior to 1952. Both the fathers passed away and the Respondent was accepted as a tenant upon the death of his father in 1968. The suit for eviction was instituted on the ground that the Appellant had unlawfully sublet the property in 1970, once she inherited it from him. However, neither the Appellant nor the Respondent have any knowledge of the terms and conditions of the lease originally granted by the father of the Appellant in favour of the father of Respondent 1. They also don't have any knowledge of the circumstance in which the sub-tenancy was created in favour of Kuppuswami Sah, nor do they have knowledge if it was created with the written consent of the landlord.

ISSUE

The issue in question relates to the interpretation of the Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960,

RULE-

Section 10(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 states that “a landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied (ii)  that the tenant has, after the 23rd October 1945 without the written consent of the landlord (a) transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the entire building or any portion thereof, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so”

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT

The high court decided that a tenant sought to be evicted on the ground of unlawful sub-letting under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 must himself have been guilty of the contravention and that the alleged contravention by his father when he was a tenant can be of no avail for evicting him.

JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS

1. The Supreme Court stated that the decision of the high court was blemishless.
2. Section 10(2) provides that if the tenant has created a sub-tenancy without the written consent of the landlord, he will be liable to be evicted. When the statute says that the tenant who is sought to be evicted must be guilty of the contravention, the court cannot cannot say “guilt of his predecessor in interest”. It says that under the law, i.e. the Rent act, the sin must belong to the tenant sought to be evicted and not his predecessors or his father. The law seeks to punish the guilty who commits the sin and no one else. Hence, the only thing the Respondent  inherited from his father was the tenancy and not the sin.
3. Here, the court held that since the relevant provision prohibiting subletting by a tenant is a penal one, as it visits the violator with the punishment of eviction, it has to be construed strictly.for the provision to apply the offending subletting must be by the tenant sought to be evicted himself and not by his predecessor. Such was not the case here as the present tenant had inherited the tenancy after the death of his father who had already sublet the portion long ago.
4. The order of the high court was considered fault free by the this Hon'ble court and upheld the same

 RELEVANT THEORY

The construction of a statute according to its letter is a construction which takes the language used in its literal sense. When a strict construction is appropriate, the particular case to come within the purview of the statute must be within both its letter and its spirit and reason. The literal meaning of a statute is that which the words express, taking them in their natural and ordinary sense, that is, giving to words of common use their commonly accepted meaning and to technical words their proper technical connotation. The spirit and reason of the law, on the other hand, is nothing more than the legislative purpose, that is the purpose with which the law was made or the reason why the legislators enacted the statute. Strict construction of a statute confines its operation to cases which are clearly within the letter of the law as well as within its spirit and reason. It is not enough that the letter of the law may include the given situation unless the spirit and reason of the law also include it. The framers of a law are presumed to have in mind a reasonably consistent and intelligible plan or scheme for achievement of the legislative purpose. Further, according to Sutherland, a strict interpretation would depend on multiple factors such as-

1. With reference to former law
2. With reference to the rights and persons affected
3. With reference to the letter or language of the statute
4. With reference to the purpose and object of the statute.