ANAND NIWAS (P) LTD. V. ANANDJI KALYANJI PEDHI (1964) 4 SCR 892
FACTS
A lease of the ground floor and first floor of a building named ‘Anand Bhawan’was granted by trustees of the trust named “Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi” to one Maneklal,for 5 years from March 5, 1950 at a rent of Rs. 2000/month.
A suit instituted by the trustees in the Court of Small Causes against Maneklal after the expiration of the period of the lease for a decree in ejectment and for arrears of rent was decreed on June 22, 1960.
In execution of the decree the trustees obtained possession of the first floor but were obstructed as to the rest of the property by a private limited company called “Anand Nivas Private Ltd.’ and two others, who claimed to be the sub lessees from the Maneklal and thereby have acquired rights of the tenancy of the ground floor upon the determination of the tenancy of Maneklal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Court of First Instance: The Company's application for an injunction restraining the trustees from obtaining possession in enforcement of the decree obtained by them against the tenant was dismissed.
District judge: affirmed the view of Court of first instance.
High Court: dismissed the appeal holding that a "statutory tenant" remaining in possession after determination of his contractual tenancy was in law not competent to sublet the premises in whole or in part and a person claiming to be a sub-tenant from a statutory tenant could not effectively plead the protection of s. 14 of the Act as amended by Ordinance III of 1959 or Bombay Act 49 of 1959.
ISSUE
Whether a tenant whose tenancy has been terminated had any right to sublet the premises?
JUDGEMENT
The court in this case referred to Solomon v. Orwell, in which it was held that "a statutory tenant had no interest capable of existing in law as an estate, but merely a statutory right of occupation which could not be the subject of surrender at common law, and, therefore, when the tenant vacated the premises the sub-tenant's right of occupation automatically came to an end.
Therefore, in the present case, it was held that, before the date of the institution of the suit, Maneklal as a statutory tenant had no right to sublet the premises and the Company acquired no right of a tenant on the determination of the tenant's right by virtue of s. 14 of the Act.
The Appeal was dismissed with costs.