A.S. SULOCHANA versus C. DHARMALINGAM

A.S. SULOCHANA versus C. DHARMALINGAM

A tenant can only be evicted for unlawful subletting under section 10(2)(ii)(a) if he himself has created the subtenancy without the written consent of the landlord; acts of the predecessor in interest do not make the successor tenant liable for eviction.

Parties
Appellant: A.S. Sulochana; Respondent: C. Dharmalingam
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 November 1986
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Madras High Court Civil Revision Petition No. 1066 of 1972
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Unlawful Subletting, Interpretation of Penal Provisions
Tenancy Law Eviction Unlawful Subletting Interpretation of Penal Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.S. Sulochana

Appellant

C. Dharmalingam

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Madras High Court Civil Revision Petition No. 1066 of 1972

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tenant can be evicted for unlawful subletting committed by his predecessor under section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Ratio Decidendi

A tenant can only be evicted for unlawful subletting under section 10(2)(ii)(a) if he himself has created the subtenancy without the written consent of the landlord; acts of the predecessor in interest do not make the successor tenant liable for eviction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs.