Supreme Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant Over Illegal Subletting in 90-Year-Old Dispute

The case of Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra & Ors. vs. Baijnath Choubey & Company revolved around a nearly 90-year-old landlord-tenant dispute over a commercial property in Ezra Street, Calcutta. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated September 13, 2024, set aside the Calcutta High Court’s ruling and upheld the eviction order against the tenant due to illegal subletting.

This judgment reaffirms the principle that tenants who violate lease agreements by subletting without the landlord’s consent are liable for eviction. The Court also emphasized procedural compliance in second appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Background of the Case

The property in question comprises premises Nos. 37, 38, and 39, Ezra Street, Calcutta. It was originally settled in trust by Harak Chand Veljee on February 19, 1933. The plaintiffs, who are the trustees of this property, initiated eviction proceedings against the defendant-tenant, Baijnath Choubey & Company.

The plaintiffs alleged that:

The tenancy, originally in the name of Baijnath Choubey, was illegally continued under a partnership arrangement.
The tenant had unlawfully sublet the property to two individuals, Sarbottam Das Mundra and Chetandas Mundra.
Eviction notices were served on July 22, 1984, but the tenant failed to vacate the premises.
The ejectment suit (No. 1079 of 2002) was filed in the Presidency Small Cause Court at Calcutta.

Legal Proceedings

Trial Court’s Ruling

The Trial Court framed nine issues and ruled in favor of the defendant on certain key points:

The suit was maintainable in its current form.
The plaintiff had a valid cause of action.
The property belonged to the trust.
An eviction notice was legally served.

However, the Trial Court ruled against the plaintiff on key issues:

The defendant was not a defaulter in rent payments.
The landlord-tenant relationship was not clearly established.
The plaintiffs failed to prove subletting beyond doubt.

The Trial Court dismissed the eviction suit on November 27, 2017.

First Appellate Court Reverses the Decision

The plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 14/2018 before the City Civil Court, Calcutta.
The First Appellate Court found inconsistencies in the Trial Court’s reasoning:

It held that a landlord-tenant relationship existed.
The tenant had illegally sublet the premises.

The Court set aside the Trial Court’s decision and granted eviction on July 25, 2019.

Calcutta High Court Overturns Eviction Order

The tenant filed a Second Appeal (S.A. No. 100/2021) before the Calcutta High Court.
The High Court framed the following substantial questions of law:

Whether Baijnath Choubey & Company was correctly impleaded as a defendant.
Whether all necessary trustees were parties to the suit.
Whether the non-joinder of parties rendered the suit defective.

The High Court ruled in favor of the tenant, stating:

The suit was defective due to the non-joinder of necessary parties.
There was no conclusive proof of subletting.

The eviction order was set aside on August 24, 2023.

Appeal Before the Supreme Court

The plaintiffs challenged the Calcutta High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing:

The High Court erred in overturning the First Appellate Court’s factual findings.
The Trial Court’s contradictory conclusions had been correctly set aside by the First Appellate Court.
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with factual findings.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, reinstated the eviction order and made the following observations:

1. High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction Under Section 100 CPC

The Court ruled that second appeals can only be entertained if there is a substantial question of law.
It cited Dnyanoba Bhaurao Shemade v. Maroti Bhaurao Marnor (1999) and Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini (2009), stating:

“The High Court must frame a substantial question of law before reversing factual findings of lower courts.”
The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference with factual findings was unjustified.

2. Evidence Clearly Established Subletting

The First Appellate Court had correctly found that the tenant had sublet the premises without consent.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that subletting is a valid ground for eviction under tenancy laws.

3. Non-Joinder of Parties Did Not Affect Suit Validity

The Court ruled that the suit was maintainable even without impleading all trustees.
It stated:

“Defendants cannot raise objections regarding non-joinder after contesting the suit on merits.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

The appeal was allowed, and the Calcutta High Court’s order was set aside.
The First Appellate Court’s eviction decree was reinstated.
The respondent-tenant was directed to vacate the premises by December 31, 2024.
Any pending dues up to the date of occupation would be borne by the tenant.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant legal implications:

Strict Enforcement of Tenancy Laws: Reinforces that illegal subletting warrants eviction.
Limits on High Court’s Jurisdiction: Prevents High Courts from reversing factual findings in second appeals without a substantial question of law.
Precedent for Eviction Cases: Strengthens landlords’ rights in cases of unauthorized subletting.

Petitioner Name: Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra & Ors..
Respondent Name: Baijnath Choubey & Company.
Judgment By: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: Ezra Street, Calcutta.
Judgment Date: 13-09-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: rashmi-kant-vijay-ch-vs-baijnath-choubey-&-c-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-13-09-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Judgment by J.K. Maheshwari
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Karol
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Remanded
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category