Madhavji Virji v. Lakshmidas Mulji

Pratt, J.:— The 1st defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff from month to month of two go-downs on the ground floor of a house in Kazi Sayed Street.

The plaintiff by notice on the 3rd May 1923 terminated the tenancy as from 14th June 1923.

The 1st defendant pleads the Rent Act.

The plaintiff says that there is satisfactory cause because defendant No. 1 on the 16th February 1923 sub-let the go-downs to the 2nd and 3rd defendants. In support of this contention Mr. Munshi relies on section 9(3) added to the Act by the amending Act (Bombay III of 1923) and contends that as the lease has been determined by notice, the case falls under both clauses of that sub-section, under the first because the sub-letting is after 21st August 1922 and the term of the lease has expired by virtue of notice to quit; under the second, because the subletting is from month to month, and therefore extends beyond the period of the lease which has been determined by notice.

I feel clear, however, that the sub-section does not support the construction that Mr. Munshi puts upon it. In the first part of the sub-section the words “the term of whoso lease has expired” are an adjectival clause qualifying the noun tenant. The first part of the section, therefore, refers to the act of a tenant whose lease has terminated, and therefore the subletting must have occurred after the expiry of the lease. So also in the second part of the sub-section the term of the lease must be fixed before the subletting. Otherwise it cannot be said that a tenant has sublet for a period extending beyond the term of his lease. In the present case the term had not expired, nor had it been determined by notice to quit before the subletting, and therefore the sub-section has no application.

The object of the sub-section is, I think, to prevent a statutory tenancy being used as a source of profit by a tenant who does not require the premises for his own occupation. The first part refers to a tenant who holds over under section 9(1), and the second part to a tenant who sublets beyond his term in expectation of a statutory tenancy. Neither part, therefore, applies to the present case.

[His Lordship then dealt with the second issue as to waiver and concluded:]

I dismiss this suit with costs.

Solicitors for the plaintiff: Messrs. Madhavji & Co.

Solicitors for the defendant: Messrs. Surveyor & Co.

Suit dismissed.

V.G.R