If a tenant gives a part of his rented premises to his relatives to live in, it could be presumed to be a case of “sub-letting”, the Bombay High Court has ruled while restoring the possession of the flat to its owner 33 years after he moved court.
Justice Nishita Mhatre upheld the lower court’s order which evicted the tenant on the plea by V V Relan, who had let out his flat to H H Shah.
Relan had filed a suit in small causes court here in 1977, seeking possession of his flat back. He alleged that Shah had defaulted on payment of rent and was living in London while he had sub-let the flat to his (Shah’s) brothers, thus violating the lease agreement.
The lower court upheld Relan’s argument, and passed an order in 2000, evicting Shah. Shah filed an appeal in High Court.
In the High Court, Shah’s lawyer argued that it was not proven that Shah was collecting any rent from his brothers and allowing one’s relatives to occupy the premises won’t amount to subletting.
However, Justice Mhatre did not accept the argument. She said in the ruling last week that “the Supreme Court has held (in earlier cases) that the proof of payment of monetary consideration is not a sine qua non (absolutely necessary) to establish subletting.”
“In a case of eviction on the ground of sub-letting, landlord is required to prove that tenant had parted with the possession of the premises…The burden would then shift on to the tenant to explain his possession. If the tenant fails to discharge that onus, the Court can presume that such possession was for monetary consideration,” the Court observed.