Case: Carona Ltd Vs. M/S. Parvathy Swaminathan &amp; Sons

possession immediately thereafter from the tenant is affected. The provisions of Section 12 prevent a landlord from recovering possession of the property from a tenant even after a lawful termination of his tenancy, provided the tenant fulfils the conditions mentioned in Section 12. Section 12 does not take away the right of the landlord to recover possession of the premises but merely postpones the enforcement of this right of the landlord so long as the tenant fulfils the conditions laid down in that section. Having put this impediment in the enforcement of the right of possession of the landlord or in other words, having clothed the tenant with an immunity from dispossession, the Legislature proceeds in Section 13 to lay down those conditions on the fulfillment of which the landlord is entitled to recover possession of the premises from the tenant. Section 13, therefore, provides for those contingencies on proof of which the tenant loses the immunity from dispossession under Section 12. Some discussion took place on the question whether the tenant has a right of possession or whether he has merely an immunity from being dispossessed. Whether it be called an immunity from dispossession or whether it be called a personal right of possession, the fact remains that by Section 13, the Legislature has provided for dispossession of tenant, despite provisions of Section 12, if the Court is satisfied that any one of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 does exist. One of such grounds is the subletting of the premises or a part thereof by the tenant. In view of this scheme of the provisions in Sections 12 and 13 of the Act, it is necessary for us to construe the meaning of the words has sub-let keeping in mind that the verb sub-let is used in the present perfect tense. First, it must be a completed past action, that is the subletting must be completed. A subletting is complete as soon as the sub-tenant is put in possession of the premises given to him on sublease. Now, this completed act of subletting must have a result. What would be that result in the context of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act? The result of subletting would be removal of the impediment in the way of the landlord to recover possession of the premises. In other words, the result of subletting would be to take away that personal right of possession which the tenant enjoyed under the provisions of the Rent Act. Now, this result must be connected with the present moment. The present moment will be the moment when the suit is filed. How is this result connected with the filing of the suit? The answer is quite obvious. It is this removal of the impediment in the way of the landlords recovery of possession which induces him to go forthwith to the Court and file a suit for possession. Therefore, the words has sub-let mean that a sub-letting has taken place and as a result of that subletting the impediment in the way of the landlord to recover possession has been removed, thus, inducing him to go to Court and ask for recovery of possession. It is the result of the completed act, i.e. the removal of the impediment in his way, which permits the landlord to go to the Court and ask for a decree for possession. It is not necessary, therefore, that subletting must continue enough if the premises have been sub-let sometime after the coming into operation of the Act. The provisions of Section 15 of the Saurashtra Rent Control Act make subletting unlawful. Therefore, any subletting by the tenant after the Act came into operation immediately removes the impediment in the way of the landlord to recover possession and entitles him immediately to go to the Court and ask for recovery of possession. In order to convey the correct meaning of the words has sub-let it is not necessary to show that the subletting was in existence on the date of suit. It is enough that the subletting has taken place sometime after the Act came into operation; it does not matter that the subletting came to an end before the landlord gave notice or before the landlord filed a suit". (emphasis supplied) 44. In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the above cases applies to the present case as well. Admittedly, on the date the tenancy was terminated, the tenant (Public Limited Company) was having a paid up share capital of rupees more than one crore. Under clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the suit-premises. It is true that a resolution was passed by the Company to reduce the paid up share capital to less than rupees one crore, but the said resolution was never approved by BIFR. But even otherwise, once it is proved that the tenancy was legally terminated and the Act would not apply to such premises, a unilateral act of tenant would not take away the accrued right in favour of the landlord. Unless compelled, a Court of Law would not interpret a provision which would frustrate the legislative intent and primary object underlying such provision. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the courts below. EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS 45. The learned counsel for the respondent-landlord is also right in submitting that the appellant-tenant does not deserve equitable relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. The tenant has not paid rent/mesne profits since more than ten years. Even after approaching this Court, it had made part payment pursuant to interim order made in April, 2005. But nothing was paid/deposited thereafter even though two years have passed. These facts have not been disputed by the appellant. We are, therefore, of the view that even on that ground, the appellant-tenant cannot ask for discretionary and equitable relief and we are not inclined to grant such relief. 46. For the foregoing reasons, the

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our opinion, the ratio laid down in the above cases applies to the present case as well. Admittedly, on the date the tenancy was terminated, the tenant (Public Limited Company) was having a paid up share capital of rupees more than one crore. Under clause (b) of Section 3(1) of the Act, therefore, the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the suit-premises. It is true that a resolution was passed by the Company to reduce the paid up share capital to less than rupees one crore, but the said resolution was never approved by BIFR. But even otherwise, once it is proved that the tenancy was legally terminated and the Act would not apply to such premises, a unilateral act of tenant would not take away the accrued right in favour of the landlord. Unless compelled, a Court of Law would not interpret a provision which would frustrate the legislative intent and primary object underlying such provision. We, therefore, see no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at by the courts below.