Case: Shayam Babu Vs. District Judge, Moradabad and Others

The material facts to bring out the point for consideration lie in a narrow compass. One Murari Lal was the owner of the disputed shop. During his lifetime a partition took place between him and the other members of his family in 1937. The shop in dispute fell to the share of Murari Lal and Narendra Mohan, his eldest son. After the death of Murari Lal in 1960 his interest devolved upon his sons Rajendra Kumar and Brijendra Kumar along with their brother Narendra Mohan.It appears that the shop in suit had been let out to one Krishan Kumar. He in his turn inducted Shyam Babu, the present appellant, as his sub-tenant in 1962. Rajendra Kumar and Brijendra Kumar filed a suit No. 181 of 1968 in the Court of Munsif for the eviction of the original tenant as well as the sub-tenant, on the ground of illegal subletting as also for the recovery of arrears of rent. That suit was contested by the tenant as well as the sub-tenant on the ground that the sub-tenancy had been created with the consent of the then landlord and therefore subletting was legal.The learned Munsif dismissed the suit by his order dated 24th April, 1973 holding that the sub-tenancy created by Krishan Kumar in favour of the appellant Shyam Babu was with the consent of the landlord and as such neither Krishan Kumar nor Shyam Babu was liable to eviction on that ground.It appears that during the pendency of the suit the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) came into force on 15th July, 1972. Rajendra Kumar and Brijendra Kumar, the landlords, moved an application under s.21 of the new Act for the release of the premises in occupation of the appellant and Krishan Kumar on the ground that the same is bonafide required for their personal use. The application was resisted by the tenant as well as the sub-tenant. They denied that the need of the landlords was genuine. They also set up their own needs and contended that they would suffer greater hardship if the application for release was allowed.The prescribed authority allowed the application with respect to the portion in occupation of the appellant Shyam Babu but dismissed the same as against the original tenant Krishan Kumar. Feeling aggrieved the landlords as well as the sub-tenant filed two separate appeals before the District Judge to the extent the order went against them. The landlords were aggrieved by the order insofar as their application was rejected against Krishan Kumar, the original tenant, while the appellant challenged the release of the premises granted to the landlords against him. Both the appeals were disposed of by a common judgment of the District Judge on 24th March, 1977 confirming the order passed by the prescribed authority. The landlords submitted to the order passed by the District Judge. T he appellant, however, sought to challenge the order of the District Judge by filing a writ petition in the High Court.

Reasoning: The appellant who is a sub-tenant pays rent to the tenant-in-chief and the tenant-in-chief in his turn pays rent to the landlord. Between the appellant and the tenant-in-chief the tenant-in-chief would be the landlord and the appellant, the sub-tenant, would be the tenant. All that the relevant proviso to s.21 requires is that the comparative hardship of the tenant as also that of the landlord shall be taken into account before passing any order of release or refusal to release. If the sub-tenancy had been created without the consent of the landlord the position might have been different. The sub-tenant for the purposes of the fourth proviso to s.21 would virtually be a tenant inasmuch as rent is payable by him to the tenant-in-chief, who to all in tents and purposes will be a landlord qua the sub-tenant. To interpret the section in the way as the High Court has interpreted would be defeating the very salutary purpose of the new Act.A similar question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Bhullan Singh v. Babu Ram based on cl. (g) of s.2 of the U.P. (Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The High Court took the view that the term tenant as defined in cl. (g) of s.2 of the Act includes a sub-tenantHaving considered the argument of the counsel for the parties we are of the firm view that the appellant was entitled to the protection of the fourth proviso to s.21 and the comparative hardship of the appellant as well as that of the landlords should have been taken into account before disposing of an application under s.21 of the new Act. The Court below in our opinion have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them in not considering the likely hardship of the appellant.