A. MAHALAKSHMI versus BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR. & ANR.

A. MAHALAKSHMI versus BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR. & ANR.

On appreciation of evidence (admissions in cross-examination and documentary material: sales tax certificate, licence, bank accounts) the Court found respondent no.2 had exclusive possession and was running the business as owner; there was no genuine partnership between respondent nos.1 and 2 and therefore a clear case of sub-letting was established. The High Court erred in setting aside the Rent Control Appellate Authority's eviction decree, which was restored.

Parties
Appellant / Landlady / Original Plaintiff: A. Mahalakshmi; Respondent No.1 / Original Tenant (deceased; Represented Through Legal Heirs): Bala Venkatram; Respondent No.2 / Sub Tenant: Shahu Hameed; Earlier Owners (executed Power of Attorney in Favour of Appellant): Dr. Sanjeevi and Mrs. Porkodi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 9443 of 2019) / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Judgment and Order Dated 24.04.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP (npd) No. 2898 of 2013
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority restored.
Legal Topics
Sub Letting, Eviction, Arrears of Rent, Partnership Vs Subletting
Rent Control Property Law Sub Letting Eviction Arrears of Rent Partnership Vs Subletting

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Mahalakshmi

Appellant / Landlady / Original Plaintiff

Bala Venkatram

Respondent No.1 / Original Tenant (deceased; Represented Through Legal Heirs)

Shahu Hameed

Respondent No.2 / Sub Tenant

Dr. Sanjeevi and Mrs. Porkodi

Earlier Owners (executed Power of Attorney in Favour of Appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (civil Appeal No. 9443 of 2019) / Appeal to the Supreme Court Against Judgment and Order Dated 24.04.2017 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP (npd) No. 2898 of 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent no.1 sub-let the tenanted premises to respondent no.2 so as to constitute ground for eviction under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960
  2. 2 Whether the appellant (power of attorney holder) was competent/maintainable to file the eviction petition as landlord
  3. 3 Whether the occupation was a genuine partnership or a device to conceal sub-letting

Ratio Decidendi

On appreciation of evidence (admissions in cross-examination and documentary material: sales tax certificate, licence, bank accounts) the Court found respondent no.2 had exclusive possession and was running the business as owner; there was no genuine partnership between respondent nos.1 and 2 and therefore a clear case of sub-letting was established. The High Court erred in setting aside the Rent Control Appellate Authority's eviction decree, which was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority restored.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2017 of the High Court set aside.
  • Judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority restored and there shall be a decree on the ground of sub-letting.