Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Eviction and Sub-letting: Room No.3/471, 3/472, and 3/476 Case

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a crucial judgment in the eviction case concerning Room No.3/471, 3/472, and 3/476. The case revolved around the alleged subletting and non-payment of rent, leading to a complex legal battle between the parties involved. Let’s delve into the details of this intriguing case and explore the legal intricacies at play in this notable Supreme Court decision.

Facts

Eviction was granted for rooms 3/472 and 3/476 in the order dated 9.7.1998.
Appellants appealed the decision before the appellate authority.
Sub-letting was not proved for Room No. 3/472, but was proved for Room No.3/476.
Appellants argued that there was one tenancy with different violations in different portions of the property.
The ownership rights were transferred to the appellants in 1986.
Cross-revision petitions were filed by both sides in the High Court of Kerala.
Eviction was sustained for Room No.3/476 due to sub-letting.
Special Leave Petition was filed by the appellants in response to the order dated 30.10.2007.
Eviction petition was filed under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(i) & 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings Act.
Rent Control Court granted a decree of eviction for all three shops on the grounds of non-payment of rent.
Appellants sent a legal notice demanding surrender of possession and arrears of rent.
Original respondent stopped rent payments after November 1987.
Appellants claimed a bona fide need for the premises and alleged subletting without consent.
Transfer/assignment of ownership was intimated to the original respondent in May 1986.
Eviction order allowed one month for the tenant to deposit arrears of rent to vacate the eviction.
Bona fide need of the appellants was not found for Room No.3/471, while it was proved for Room No.3/472.
Room No.3/476 had sub-letting proved against it.
The three rooms in question were 3/471, 3/472, and 3/476.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Single Till Mechanism for HRAB Calculation: A Comprehensive Analysis

Analysis

The legal foundation to raise a case is mandated, including in the grounds of appeal.
A pure question of law can be examined at any stage, even before the Supreme Court.
The notice sought to be contended under Section 11(4)(i) of the said Act implied eviction from the whole premises upon sub-letting part of it.
The plea of sub-letting one room for eviction from the entire tenancy premises was never urged before the trial court or appellate court.
The statute implies passing an eviction order in respect of the whole premises if one tenancy is created.
A judgment covering the legal principle was referred to for guidance.
In this case, a single tenancy was in existence, even though different violations were alleged for different portions.
Sub-letting any part of the premises entitles the landlord to seek eviction from the entire premises.
The landlord must send a registered notice before applying for eviction in case of sub-letting.
The essential facts indicate the existence of a single tenancy, as analyzed by lower courts.
The partition of premises does not divide the original tenancy for the purpose of eviction orders.
Both shops were subject to eviction due to sub-lease in one of them.
There was a single tenancy, but sub-letting was done for one of two shop rooms.
Examining legal consequences of factual foundation is a pure question of law.
The concurrent finding by all courts necessitates examination of the sole plea available.
A single notice and eviction petition were filed for all three shops/rooms.
The provision and judicial pronouncements support eviction from entire premises upon any sub-letting.
The aspect of single tenancy was not disputed in the eviction petition, notice, and reply.
The case does not involve a bona fide requirement for eviction.
The plea should be examined despite not being raised earlier due to its legal nature.
The cause for eviction arises upon the tenant transferring and sub-letting the building or any portion as per Section 11(4)(i) of the Act.
The tenant cannot transfer his right under the lease or sublet the building without the landlord’s consent.
A landlord can apply for eviction if the tenant transfers or sublets the property without permission.
The landlord must send a registered notice to the tenant before applying for eviction.
The tenant has 30 days to terminate the transfer or sublease after receiving the notice.
The definition of a ‘building’ as per Section 2(i) of the Act is also mentioned.
A separate application was filed for permission to urge additional grounds
This course of action was already examined and approved by the Court in Chittoori Subbanna v. Kudappa Subbanna
Lord Watson’s observation in Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. v. Kavanagh emphasized considreing questions of law in the interests of justice
The Court is inclined to scrutinize questions of law raised at the final court stage
The facts of the case are undisputed
The only question is whether the issue is a question of law worth examining
Judicial pronouncements in M. Meeramytheen & Ors. v. K. Parameswaran Pillai & Ors. are considered
The appellants were entitled to a decree of eviction for the entire premises based on the ground of sub-letting a part of the premises by the respondents.
The legal consequence of sub-letting a portion is vacating the entire premises.
The appellants did not have to allege sub-letting of the whole premises if it was only a part.
The respondents had the opportunity to file cross-objections or cross-appeals but chose not to.