1. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the first respondent in R.C.O.P No. 238 of 1972 on the file of the Munsiff, Kozhikode-I. The property involved in the case is a building which was taken on rent by the first respondent and one C.K Aboobacker Haji on 20-6-1953 from the then owner of the property. The rights of Aboobacker Haji devolved on the first respondent. The original lessors transferred their rights to the petitioners in R.C.O.P 238/72. The rent which was originally fixed at Rs. 300/- was subsequently raised to Rs. 450/-. The first respondent attorned to the petitioners. The petition was filed under S. 11(2)(a) and 4(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The case of the petitioners was that rent was kept in arrears after March 1972 and that the first-respondent sublet portions of the building at a higher rent to respondents 2 to 4. A notice was issued terminating the tenancy and in due course, the petition for eviction was filed. The first respondent admitted the lease. According to him, even before the lease in his favour, the building was being used as a lodge and specific permission had been given by the then lessors to the first respondent for entrusting portions of the building to third parties. The existence of arrears of rent is disputed. The 2nd respondent to whom one of the rooms is alleged to have been sublet is a travel agent engaged in booking tickets by rail and ship. He has been occupying one of the rooms from 1955, in connection with his job. He is only a lodger and not a sub-lessee. Though a board and a phone are provided in the room, the understanding is that they would be removed as and when required by the first respondent. The third respondent has been in possession of a room in the building since 1957. He also is a lodger, and not a lessee. The 4th respondent constructed a shed outside the building and has been carrying on a trade for the last 15 years. The shed was constructed with the consent of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The first respondent has nothing to do with the occupation of the shed by the 4th respondent except that he permitted an electric connection to betaken from a room in the building and was receiving one rupee per month from the 4th respondent as electric charge. According to the first respondent, the petitioners were aware of the occupation of respondents 2 to 4 and it was understood that himself and his predecessor had waived the conditions if any attached to the lease. Respondents 2 to 4 put forward similar contentions. The Rent Control Court held that the petitioner did not establish that there was a condition against sub-lease. The circumstances proved in the case would indicate that the first respondent was authorised to conduct a lodge in the petition schedule building. The court also held that respondents 2 and 3 were in occupation of portions of the building atleast from 1960 and 1961 respectively. The Rent Control Court further held that the occupation by respondents 2 to 4 was not as sub-lessees and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to get delivery of possession of the building under S. 11(4)(i) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Control Court, however, found that the first respondent had kept arrears of rent and, therefore, eviction under S. 11(2)(b) of the Act was allowed. Against the above order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Appellate authority. By that time, the first respondent died and his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents. Respondents 14 to 16 in appeal were respondents 2 to 4 before the Rent Control Court. The appellate authority reversed the findings of the Rent Control Court and held that respondents 2 to 4 before the Rent Control Court were sub-lessees and the sub-leases were without the consent of the original lessor. Eviction was ordered on the ground of sub-leases also. The above finding was confirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge, Kozhikode, in C.R.P 84 of 1976. It is this order that is being challenged by the legal representatives of the original first respondent in the present revision petition. The questions involved are whether respondents 2 to 4 are sub-lessees and whether the sub-leases were without the concurrence of the original lessor. The first respondent took the stand that since the building was even prior to the lease in his favour being used as a lodging house, a permission to let to stranger can be presumed. He also put forward a case that the original lessor had agreed to the granting of the sub-leases which are now challenged.
2. The evidence available in the case does not show that the original lessor had agreed to the granting of the sub-lease. A permission to grant sub-leases cannot be presumed from the mere fact that the building is used as a lodge. In the instant case, it is established by evidence that both respondents 2 and 3 have their own telephones installed in their respective rooms and their boards are put up at the entrance of these rooms. The evidence is that rent was being collected on a daily basis. The first respondent would however contend that respondents 2 and 3 are only lodgers and they have no exclusive possession of the rooms. A belated attempt was made to show that there are two keys for each of the rooms, one key of each of the rooms is kept by the first respondent. The Rent Control Court and the Appellate authority did not accept this plea. Absence of any sub-lease is also sought to be made out by showing that Sweeping of the rooms is done by the same sweeper who does work in the remaining portion of the building. But this is not a conclusive circumstance. It could as well be that there are independent engagements of the same sweeper by the first respondent and respondents 2 and 3. The evidence available is sufficient for holding that respondents 2 and 3 are in exclusive possession of the room.
3. The contention put forward on behalf of the revision petitioners is that even assuming that respondents 2 and 3 are occupying the room, they are only in the position of lodgers and not lessees under the Act. Reference is made to the definition of ‘building’ in S. 2(1) of the Act. The definition excludes a room in a hotel or lodge. It is argued that in the light of the definition, letting of a room in a hotel or lodge to strangers is not a ground for evicting the tenant who has taken a lease of the whole building. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Hotels Of India Ltd v. R.N Kapoor, (AIR. 1959 SC. 1262). The case related to a room in the Imperial Hotel, New Delhi. R.N Kapoor, the respondent in that case was the Propretor of a business carried on under the name ‘Madam Janes’. Under an agreement with the appellant, he occupied certain spaces in the ‘Ladies and Gents' cloak rooms of the Imperial Hotel on a rent of Rs. 700/- per month. He filed an application before the Rent Controller, New Delhi under the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rant Control Act (19 of 1947) alleging that he was a tenant of the spaces in the cloakroom under the appellant and claiming for a fixation of standard rent. The appellant opposed the application contending that the Act did not apply and, therefore, no standard rent could be fixed. The contention put forward on behalf of the appellant was that being a room in the hotel, the Act did not apply. The Supreme Court by a majority upheld the contentions of the appellant that the space occupied by the respondent was a room in a hotel and dismissed the application for fixation of standard rent. The decision only means that a person who is occupying a room in a hotel is not a tenant of a building entitled to rights under the Delhi and Ajmer-Merwara Rent Control Act. Incidentally the Supreme Court considered what a room in a hotel should satisfy. It was held that a room in a hotel must fulfil two conditions: (1) it must be part of a hotel in the physical sense and (2) its uses must be connected with the general purpose of the hotel of which it is a part. The question whether transfer of, exclusive possession of a room in the building on agreement to pay rent amounted to subletting did not arise in the case. The dispute was between the lessees of the building and the occupier of the rooms regarding the rights of the latter to get fair rent fixed.
4. The question of interpretation of the word ‘room in a hotel’ came up for decision before the Supreme Court again in Associated Hotels of India v. Ranjit Singh (AIR. 1968 SC. 933). The decision also relates to the Imperial Hotel, New Delhi run by the appellant. The building was owned by the respondent in the appeal. In January 1958, the respondent instituted the suit alleging that in breach of the express conditions of the lease, the appellant sub-let portions of the premises and made unauthorised additions and alterations in the premises. He claimed eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub-lease. The appellant denied the allegations and also pleaded that the respondents had waived the breaches if any, of the conditions of the lease and accepted rent with knowledge of such breaches. The appellant put forward a case that the keys of the apartments were sometimes left at the reception counter; but the evidence on this point was not convincing. It was not a condition of the grants that the keys would be left at the reception counter or that the duplicate keys would be retained by the appellant. The trial court as also the High Court in appeal concurrently found that the appellant had sublet several rooms, counters and garages. The occupants were given exclusive possession of the rooms occupied by them, the appellant retaining no control and dominion over the rooms. The Supreme Court held that the onus to prove sub-letting was on the respondent, but that the respondent discharged the onus by leading evidence showing that the occupants were in exclusive possession of the apartments for valuable consideration. The Supreme Court further observed:
“The hotel building constitutes premises within the meaning of S. 2(g) of the Act. It is because the hotel building constitutes premises that, the appellant can claim protection from eviction under the Act. A room in a hotel is a part of the hotel premises. A subletting of a room in a hotel in contravention of cls. (b) and (c) of the proviso to S. 13(1) is a ground for eviction under the Act. S 2(g) provides that ‘premises’ does not include “a room in a hotel or lodging house”. The sub-lessee of a room in a hotel is, therefore, not a tenant and cannot claim protection under S. 13 from eviction, nor can he ask for fixatian of standard rent……. Because a room in a hotel is not premises, it does not follow that the room is not a part of the hotel premises or that a subbletting of the room is not a contravention of Cls. (b) and (c) of the proviso to S. 13(1).”
5. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the provisions regarding sub-letting in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (2 of 1965) in E.V Mathai v. Sub Judge, Kottayam ((1969) 2 SCC 194 : AIR. 1970 SC. 337). The building therein was let out as a lodging house, but one of the rooms was in the occupation of a lawyer who had been there for years and put up his name board outside the room. There were name-boards of other persons also. The lawyer had installed a telephone in the room. He was paying rent on daily basis. The question arose as to whether that amounted to sub-letting. The Supreme Court confirmed the finding of the District Court and the High Court that there was sub-letting and refused to interfere with the order of eviction passed.
6. Adopting the ratio of the rulings of the Supreme Court referred to above, a room in a hotel or lodging house should fulfil two conditions: (1) it must be part of a hotel or lodging house in the physical sense, and (2) its use must be connected with the general purpose of the hotel or lodging house. A room in a hotel or lodging house is not a building coming under S. 2(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (5 of 1965). A person who is an occupant of a room in a hotel is not entitled to claim any of the benefits conferred under the Act such as the right to get fair rent fixed or to claim amenities or fixity of tenure. At the same time if a person is in exclusive occupation of a room in a hotel and the terms of his occupation satisfy the ingredients of a lease, he becomes a lessee of the room, under general law and a sub-lessee so far as the owner of the building is concerned.
7. Under S. 11(4)(i) if the tenant of a building transfers his right under the lease or sub-lets the entire building or any portion thereof, he is liable to be evicted if the lease does not confer on him the right to do so. Since a room in a hotel is not a building under the Act, by granting a sublease of a room or a portion of the building for purposes connected with the general purposes of the hotel or lodging house, the lessee who is running the-hotel or lodging house does not become liable to be evicted under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The lessor may have to pursue his remedies under the general law. (See Vidyadharan v. Narayana Pillai (1973 KLT. 203)). But the owner of a building or the lessor becomes entitled to evict a lessee thereof who is running a hotel or lodging house therein under the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act if the latter sub-lets a portion thereof for purposes unconnected with the general purpose of the hotel or lodging house, because in such cases the portion ceases to be a room in a hotel or lodging house.
8. In this case there is no scope for doubt that the sub-letting to respondents 2 to 4 was for purposes unconnected with the hotel business of the first respondent. The portions sub-let are therefore not rooms in a hotel and are buildings for purposes of S. 11(4)(i). The revision petitioners have not succeeded in establishing that the terms of the lease in their favour permit sub-letting or that sub-letting was done with the concurrence of the lessor. The petition for eviction was therefore maintainable. The order granting eviction does not call for interference. The revision petition is dismissed.
9. Dismissed.
Comments