Supreme Court Grants Eviction for Subletting Under Kerala Rent Control Act

The case of K. Lubna & Others vs. Beevi & Others was a significant ruling concerning the eviction of tenants under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Supreme Court had to decide whether subletting a portion of rented premises without the landlord’s consent justified the eviction of tenants from the entire premises.

Background of the Case

The dispute involved three rented shop rooms—Room Nos. 3/471, 3/472, and 3/476—located in Kozhikode, Kerala. These premises were originally let out by one Pathummakutty to a tenant named Beerankoya under a lease agreement dated January 1, 1967. The appellants, K. Lubna and others, later became the owners of the property in 1986 and informed the tenant about the ownership transfer.

The appellants alleged that the tenant had:

• Stopped paying rent after November 1987.
• Sublet two of the shop rooms without the landlord’s consent.
• Materially and permanently reduced the value of the rented property.

Based on these claims, the appellants filed an eviction petition under Sections 11(2), 11(3), and 11(4)(i) & (ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The appellants, K. Lubna and others, made the following arguments:

• The tenant had defaulted on rent payments since 1987.
• The tenant had sublet two of the three shop rooms without the landlord’s consent.
• The Kerala Rent Control Act allows eviction when any portion of the premises is sublet without permission.
• Since the entire tenancy was a single unit, eviction should apply to all rented rooms, even if subletting occurred in only one.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondents, legal heirs of the original tenant, presented the following arguments:

• They had paid rent up to a certain period and were willing to pay arrears.
• The alleged subletting applied only to one of the rooms, not the entire property.
• The eviction should be restricted only to the shop room where subletting was proven.
• The eviction order could not be enforced on the entire premises without a specific plea in earlier proceedings.

Lower Court and High Court Rulings

The Rent Control Court ruled in favor of the appellants on the ground of non-payment of rent but did not find sufficient proof for subletting or bona fide need. However, upon appeal, the Appellate Authority granted eviction for Room No. 3/472 (on grounds of bona fide need) and Room No. 3/476 (on grounds of subletting). The High Court upheld the eviction for Room No. 3/476 but reversed the decision for Room No. 3/472.

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellants, granting eviction for the entire premises. The Court emphasized the following legal principle:

“Under Section 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, if a tenant sublets any portion of the leased premises without the landlord’s consent, the eviction order must apply to the entire tenancy.”

The Court further held:

• The entire tenancy was a single unit, not separate tenancies for individual rooms.
• Issuing a single eviction petition for the entire property indicated the landlord’s intention to evict from all rooms.
• Once subletting was proven in any part of the premises, eviction must apply to all rooms, as per the statutory provisions.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court referred to various judgments, including:

• M. Meeramytheen vs. K. Parameswaran Pillai – Confirming that a single tenancy cannot be divided for eviction purposes.
• Chittoori Subbanna vs. Kudappa Subbanna – Establishing that pure legal questions can be raised at any stage.
• Connecticut Fire Insurance Co. vs. Kavanagh – Explaining that new legal issues may be considered by the final appellate court.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court’s ruling provided the following directives:

• Eviction was granted for all three shop rooms.
• The respondents (tenants) were granted six months to vacate the premises.
• The appellants were allowed to enforce the eviction decree if the respondents failed to vacate within the given time.

This judgment reaffirmed the importance of landlord rights and established that subletting any portion of a tenanted property without consent results in eviction from the entire premises.

Petitioner Name: K. Lubna & Others.
Respondent Name: Beevi & Others.
Judgment By: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice K. M. Joseph.
Place Of Incident: Kozhikode, Kerala.
Judgment Date: 13-01-2020.

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

Download Judgment: K. Lubna & Others vs Beevi & Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 13-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Judgment by Sanjay Kishan Kaul
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 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