Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1981 (ALL)

S. K. Gupta v. Vinay Singhal

2014-07-08

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. – Heard Sri I.N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Saharanpur and the revisional order dated 24.5.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge dismissing the revision thereof. 3. The respondent landlord instituted a suit for eviction of the petitioners from the shop no. 6 having Municipal Number 2C/3051/1, situate at Church Road, Sadar Saharanpur. The suit was decreed on the ground of sub-letting and the decree has been upheld by the revisonal court. 4. The only submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the respondent landlord is a subsequent purchaser. The subletting has taken place during the time of the previous owner. Since he took no objection to subletting the respondent has no right to claim eviction of the petitioners on the said ground. 5. Admittedly, respondent landlord has purchased the property from the previous owners vide sale deed dated 26.8.2006 registered on 1.9.2006. The previous owner had let out the aforesaid property to petitioner no. 1 wherein it is alleged that petitioner no. 2 has been inducted as sub tenant who is now running a medical store from the property in dispute. 6. Section 25 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 provides that no tenant shall sublet any part of the building under his tenancy without permission in writing of the landlord and of the District Magistrate. Admittedly, there is no permission or consent of either of the previous owners, or the present owner and landlord or of the District Magistrate permitting letting out of the shop in favour of petitioner no. 2. 7. In view of the above subletting of the shop which is admitted is clearly in violation of Section 25 of the Act. The argument that as the subletting was continuing since the time of the previous owners and as they have not taken any action, it will deem to have waived was not accepted by the courts below. 8. The courts below have relied upon the evidence of petitioner no. 1 himself that he had been paying rent to the owners and landlord and that he has not sublet the shop either with the consent or knowledge of the previous owners. 9. 8. The courts below have relied upon the evidence of petitioner no. 1 himself that he had been paying rent to the owners and landlord and that he has not sublet the shop either with the consent or knowledge of the previous owners. 9. Moreover, in the assessments records of the Nagar Palika, the shop continues to be recorded in the tenancy of petitioner no. 1 alone and there is no evidence to show that petitioner no. 2 was ever in occupation of the said shop in any capacity much less as a sub tenant. 10. The enhancement of Rs. 500/- to 1000/- per month is not sufficient to prove that the enhancement was on account of subletting. 11. The sale deed by which the respondent had purchased the property also does not speak about any subletting or that petitioner no. 2 is in occupation of the property. 12. In view of the above factual position, the courts below held that petitioners failed to prove that the subletting was continuing from the times of the previous owners or that the previous owners had the knowledge of the same or that he by his conduct has waived his right to take action in respect thereof. 13. The argument that since the previous owners have not taken any ground of subletting, the respondent is estopped from evicting the petitioners from the property on the aforesaid ground is wholly misconceived and untenable in law for the simple reason that the subletting is in violation of Section 25 of the Act and it is settled that there can not be no estoppel against the statute. 14. No other point was raised and argued before me. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.