Unlawful Subletting by Tenant Justifies Eviction, Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Transferred Without Landlord's Consent: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court, presided by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, issued a significant ruling in a landlord-tenant dispute involving M/s. Bhimale and Sons and Moti Dinshaw Irani & Ors. In this case (Civil Revision Application No. 71 of 2024 & Writ Petition No. 8788 of 2024), the Court upheld an eviction decree based on unlawful subletting and default in rent payment, while rejecting claims of a direct tenancy relationship between the subtenants and the landlords. The Court ordered the defendants to vacate the premises by December 31, 2024, and allowed for an inquiry into mesne profits from September 9, 2014.
The plaintiffs, heirs of the original landlord, filed a suit seeking possession of their premises in Pune, alleging that Defendant No. 1, the son of the original tenant, had unlawfully sublet the property to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, violating the terms of their tenancy. The defendants denied these claims, asserting a direct tenancy relationship with the previous landlord, Dara K. Irani, and sought to introduce rent receipts to support their case. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on the grounds of default in rent payment, but rejected the unlawful subletting claim, finding Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to be direct tenants.
I. Tenancy Law – "Unlawful Subletting Confirmed, Tenant's Liability Upheld"
The High Court clarified that the Trial Court and Appellate Court had erred in concluding that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were direct tenants. The Court determined that Ghulam Husain, the original tenant, had not legally transferred tenancy rights to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, but had unlawfully sublet the premises to them without the landlords' consent.
"The tenant (Defendant No. 1) unlawfully sublet the premises to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, and the eviction decree is modified to reflect this," the Court ruled .
II. Default in Rent Payment: Eviction Confirmed
The High Court also found that Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 had failed to comply with rent payment requirements under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, further justifying their eviction. The defendants neither paid rent to the plaintiffs nor deposited it in court as required. Their attempt to deposit arrears was made after substantial delays, violating statutory provisions.
"The defendants failed to regularly deposit rent during the suit’s pendency, further warranting eviction," the Court emphasized .
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 sought to introduce rent receipts to support their claim of a direct tenancy with Dara K. Irani. However, the Court rejected their application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that the receipts did not substantiate their claims.
"The documents sought to be introduced as additional evidence failed to establish a direct tenancy and would not alter the outcome of the case," the Court ruled .
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application filed by the defendants and allowed the writ petition by the plaintiffs, modifying the earlier rulings to reflect that Defendant No. 1 had unlawfully sublet the premises to Defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The Court directed the defendants to vacate the property by December 31, 2024, and permitted an inquiry into mesne profits from September 9, 2014, until the recovery of possession.
 

Date of Decision: October 15, 2024
M/s. Bhimale and Sons v. Moti Dinshaw Irani & Ors.