Summary
The Court restored eviction for subletting where the tenant had handed the shop to another person who exclusively operated it, held its registrations and controlled its bank accounts. The claimed partnership was not genuine. The tenant, who obtained possession under the appellant’s lease and paid her rent, could not deny her status as landlady merely because she acted under a power of attorney.
Issues
- Whether the appellant could maintain eviction proceedings as landlady.
- Whether the claimed partnership concealed subletting and justified restoration of eviction.
Held
- The tenant had accepted possession under the appellant’s rental agreement and paid rent to her. He could not dispute her authority as landlady; no such objection had been raised before the rent authorities or High Court. (¶ 6.1)
- Subletting requires parting with legal possession and exclusive enjoyment. A genuine partnership retaining the tenant’s possession is distinguishable from an ostensible partnership concealing a transfer; prima facie proof of third-party exclusive possession shifts the explanatory onus to the tenant. (¶ 8)
- The tenant admitted handing over the shop and the third party’s ownership-style operation, licensing, tax registration and bank control. On the evidence, the supposed partnership was a device and a clear case of subletting was established. The High Court had failed to address this evidence. (¶¶ 7, 9)
- Eviction was restored specifically on the ground of subletting, with three months to hand over peaceful possession conditional on the usual undertaking and payment of full rent arrears within four weeks. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court order was set aside and the Rent Control Appellate Authority’s eviction decree restored on subletting. Respondents must deliver possession within three months, file the usual undertaking and pay full rent arrears within four weeks.