Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the appellants (landlords) and the respondents (tenants) over eviction from three shop rooms (Nos. 3/471, 3/472, 3/476) in Kozhikode, Kerala. The original tenant, Beerankoya, took the premises on lease in 1967. The appellants acquired ownership in 1986 and alleged that the tenant stopped paying rent after November 1987, sublet two shops without consent, and caused material reduction in the value of the shops. They issued a legal notice on 15.12.1987 and filed an eviction petition under Sections 11(2), 11(3), 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court granted eviction only on the ground of non-payment of rent, but the appellate authority reversed in part, granting eviction for Room No. 3/472 on bona fide need and Room No. 3/476 on subletting. The High Court, in revision, set aside eviction for Rooms 3/471 and 3/472 but upheld eviction for Room 3/476 on subletting. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that since there was a single tenancy and a composite eviction petition, subletting of one room should result in eviction from the entire premises under Section 11(4)(i). The respondents contended that this plea was not raised earlier. The Supreme Court held that the plea was a pure question of law based on undisputed facts and could be entertained. Relying on M. Meeramytheen v. K. Parameswaran Pillai, the Court interpreted Section 11(4)(i) to mean that subletting of any portion of the tenanted premises entitles the landlord to eviction from the whole premises. Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order regarding Rooms 3/471 and 3/472, and directed eviction from all three rooms.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting of Part of Premises - Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Subletting of any portion of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction from the whole premises - The court held that the statute clearly provides that if the tenant sub-lets the entire building or any portion thereof without consent, the landlord is entitled to eviction from the entire premises, as the tenancy is indivisible (Paras 13-14). B) Civil Procedure - Raising New Plea at Supreme Court - Pure Question of Law - A pure question of law can be examined at any stage, including before the Supreme Court, if the factual foundation has been laid - The court allowed the appellants to raise the legal plea regarding the effect of subletting on the entire tenancy, as it was a pure question of law based on undisputed facts (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether subletting of a part of the tenanted premises entitles the landlord to eviction from the entire premises under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, when there is a single tenancy and a composite eviction petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court insofar as it denied eviction from Room Nos. 3/471 and 3/472, and directed eviction of the respondents from all three shop rooms (3/471, 3/472, and 3/476) in favour of the appellants.
Law Points
- Subletting of any portion of tenanted premises entitles landlord to eviction from whole premises
- Single tenancy remains indivisible despite different violations in different portions
- Pure question of law can be raised at any stage if factual foundation exists
