A.

Mahalakshmi
Versus
Bala Venkatraman (D) Through Lr & Anr.

MADHVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

LL.B. III
Memorial for Respondent
 A. Mahalakshmi

vs

Bala Venkatraman (D) Through Lr & Anr

NAVJEEVAN LAW COLLEGE Civil Appeal No. 9443 of 2019. D/d. 7.1.2020

MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

REPORTABLE : IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
For the Appellant :- Aniruddha Joshi, Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, P. Srinivasan,

(CIVIL APPEAL)
Advocates.

For the Respondents :- C. Paramasivam, Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates.

CASE-No 02

Bench : Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah

CITATION OF THEAPPELLANT(S)
A. Mahalakshmi CASE
Represented By: Ms. Laxmi S. Jaiswal
(Student Advocate)

V.
Bala Venkatram (D) Through Lr & Anr

RESPONDENT(S)

Represented By: Mr. Madhvendra Pratap Singh

SUBMITTED BY
(Student Advocate)
SUBMITTED TO

PROF. SAMIR N. CHAVAN

M.Sc., B.Ed., LL.M., SET
Memorial for Respondent
SR. NO. INDEX PAGE NO.

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 VAKALATNAMA
3 MEMO OF APPEARANCE
4 LIST OF ABBREVIATION
3 STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CASE
4 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
5 STATEMENT OF ISSUES
6 ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT
7 DECISION AND OBSERVATION
8 PROVISION OF LAW INVOLVED
9 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
10 INDEX OF AUTHORITY
11 PRAYER CLAUSE
12 AFFIDAVIT
13 VERIFICATION

Memorial for Respondent

 CONTENTS

BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 9443 of 2019. D/d. 7.1.2020

A. MAHALAKSHMI APPELLANT(S)

V.

BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR & ANR RESPONDENT(S)

Summarised principles on Subletting- Initial burden of proving subletting is on landlord but

once he is able to establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the premises and
that tenant has no legal possession of the tenanted premises, the onus shifts to tenant to
prove the nature of occupation of such third party and that he (tenant) continues to hold
legal possession in tenancy premises

Memorial for Respondent

 VAKALATNAMA

BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9443 OF 2019. D/D. 7.1.2020

IN THE MATTER OF

A. MAHALAKSHMI APPELLANT(S)

V.

BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR & ANR RESPONDENT(S)

I, Bela Venkatram (D) through LR & Anr., the Respondent do hereby appoint, adopt
and accept Mr. Madhvendra Pratap Singh, student of Navjeevan Law College, Nashik as an
advocate to appear, act and plead and /or to appoint another Advocate for ourself.
In witness where we have signed below this _____ day of ______ 2020.

_______________________________
(Signature of Authorised person appointing Advocate)

_____________________
(Madhvendra Pratap Singh)
Student Advocate for Respondent

Place: Tamil Nadu

Date: December 15, 2020

Memorial for Respondent

 Memo of Appearance

BEFORE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9443 OF 2019. D/D. 7.1.2020

A. MAHALAKSHMI APPELLANT(S)

V.

BALA VENKATRAM (D) THROUGH LR & ANR RESPONDENT(S)

I, Mr. Madhvendra Pratap Singh, Student of Navjeevan Law College, Nashik have been
appointed and accepted as an Advocate by the Respondent to appear, act and plead before
the honourable Tribunal.
Hence, this memo of appearance.

_____________________
(Madhvendra Pratap Singh)
Student Advocate for Respondent

Place: Tamil Nadu

Date: December 15, 2020

Memorial for Respondent

 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Word Explanation
Anr Another
Ors Others
Art Article
S Section
Vs Versus
i.e that is
HC High Court
SC Supreme Court
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SCR Supreme Court Reports
AIR All India Reporter
OP’s Opposite Parties
Hon’ble Honourable
WP(C) Civil Writ Petition

Memorial for Respondent

 STATEMENT OF FACTS OF THE CASE
The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under:

1. One Dr. Sanjeevi and his wife Mrs. Porkodi, the earlier owner of the suit premises in
question had executed a power of attorney dated 01.11.2016 in the name of the
appellant herein and in respect of the said property.
2. That by way of rental agreement dated 23.05.2007, the appellant let out the
premises in question to original respondent no. 1 herein - Bala Venkatram (now dead
and represented through legal heirs) for running ‘Best Mark Super Market’ from
June, 2007 to July, 2009 on a monthly rent of Rs. 11,000/-. That an advance amount
of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by way of security.
3. The appellant - landlady filed an eviction suit on the ground of sub-letting as well as
on the ground of arrears of rent against the respondents herein -original defendants
-Bala Venkatram and another under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of
the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’) in the Court of District Munsiff, Pollachi.
4. According to the landlady the rent was initially paid by original defendant no. 1 -Bala
Venkatram till October, 2007. It was the case on behalf of the landlady that upon
default in payment of rent and noticing a change in the name as well as ownership of
the shop in the tenanted premises from ‘Best Mark Super Market’ to ‘Amutham
Super Market’, she made enquiries and discovered that not only there was a change
in the name but a complete change of hand from original defendant- Bala
Venkatram to respondent no. 2 - Shahu Hameed which also on the face of it was a
gross breach of the rent agreement.
5. According to the landlady, the sub-letting was evident from the Certificate of
Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Tax Department. Therefore,
the landlady issued a legal notice to original defendant - Bala Venkatram pointing
out the said breaches and called upon him to collect balance amount from the
advance payment deposited after adjusting the arrears of rent and handover
possession of the tenanted premises within 15 days failing which the appropriate
legal action would be taken. There was no reply to the legal notice from respondent
no. 1 - original defendant no. 1. Therefore, the landlady, the appellant herein, filed
R.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2008 for decree of eviction on the ground of sub-letting and arrears
of rent.
6. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. Aggrieved by the same,
the landlady preferred R.C.A. No. 1 of 2012. That the learned Rent Control Appellate
Authority allowed the appeal in part. The learned Rent Control Appellate Authority
passed the eviction decree on the ground of sub-letting only and therefore allowed
the petition filed under Sections 10(2)(i) and 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) of the Act. However,
dismissed the petition filed under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act - wastage & material
alteration of the premises.
7. That the original tenant-Bala Venkatram died. Therefore, the legal heirs of the
original tenant - Bala Venkatram and the second respondent - sub-tenant preferred
the revision application before the High Court.

Memorial for Respondent

8. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has allowed the said revision
application and has quashed and set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent
Control Appellate Authority. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
Judgment and order passed by the High Court in quashing and setting aside the
eviction decree on the ground of sub-letting, the landlady has preferred the present
appeal.

ARGUMENTS OF RESPONDENT

Memorial for Respondent

1. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by Shri C. Paramasivam, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the
respondents that as the appellant is not the owner of the suit premises and is only a
power of attorney holder of the owner of the premises, the eviction petition itself is not
maintainable. It is submitted that therefore the appellant cannot be said to be a landlady
and therefore the eviction petition at the instance of the appellant is not maintainable.
1.1 Now so far as the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is concerned,
it is vehemently submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents
that on appreciation of evidence and considering the fact that the appellant has failed to
prove that respondent no.1 had sub-let the suit premises to the second respondent, the
High Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.
1.2 It is further submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents
that even in the deposition/evidence of the landlady, it has come on record that respondent
no.1 and respondent no.2 – Shahu Hameed were running the shop as partners. It is
submitted therefore that when both, respondent nos. 1 & 2 were running the shop as
partners, there is no question of sub-letting. It is submitted that therefore the High Court
has rightly set aside the eviction decree on the ground of sub-letting.

2. When eviction is sought on ground of sub-letting, the onus to prove sub-letting is on the
landlord.

3. Landlady has received the rent till Dec 2007 and first respondent has no necessary to get
the permission from landlady for running business in any other name.

4. We were running “Amutham Super Market” in the suit premises. Accordingly, there were
many branches namely “Amutham Jewellary, Foods, Electronics, Textiles etc.

5. Since respondents refused to give the business in the name of landlady. She filed eviction
with an ulterior motive.

Memorial for Respondent

 DECISION AND OBSERVATION

Decision:

As the rental agreement was between the appellant and respondent-1 the appellant hold the
status of landlady. Therefore, the eviction petition of the appellant would be maintainable.
Respondent no.1 has come out with a case of partnership only to get out from the allegation of
sub-letting. The exclusive possession of the suit premises is with respondent-2. Respondent-2 is
running the business in the suit premises as an owner. Sales Tax Certificate and the licence are
in the name of respondent-2. Under the circumstances, a clear case of sub-letting has been
made out. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the
judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is restored.

Observation:

1. The Apex Court stated that to constitute a sub-letting, there must be a parting of
legal possession, i.e., possession with the right to include and also right to exclude
others. Subletting, assigning or otherwise parting with the possession of the whole
or any part of the tenancy premises, without obtaining the consent in writing of the
landlord, is not permitted and if done, the same provides a ground for eviction of the
tenant by the landlord.
2. Further, the Apex Court stated: When the eviction is sought on the ground of sub-
letting, the onus to prove subletting is on the landlord. As held by this Court in the
case of Associated Hotels of India Limited v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC
933, if the landlord prima facie shows that the third party is in exclusive possession
of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then be for the tenant to
rebut the evidence.
3. At the same time, as held by this Court in the case of G.K. Bhatnagar v. Abdul Alim,
(2002) 9 SCC 516 and Helper Girdharbhai v. Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri,
(1987) 3 SCC 538, where a tenant becomes a partner of a partnership firm and
allows the firm to carry on business in the premises while he himself retains the
legal possession thereof, the act of the tenant does not amount to sub-letting.
4. It is further observed and held that however inducting the partner in his business or
profession by the tenant is permitted so long as such partnership is genuine. It is
further observed that if the purpose of such partnership is ostensible in carrying on
business or profession in a partnership but the real purpose in sub-letting such
premises to such other person who is inducted ostensibly as a partner then the same
shall be deemed to be an act of subletting.

Memorial for Respondent

5. After considering catena of decisions of this Court on sub-letting, in the case of
Celina Coelho Pereira v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar, (2010) 1 SCC 217, this Court
has summarised in paragraph 25 as under:
“25. The legal position that emerges from the aforesaid decisions can be summarised
thus:
(i) In order to prove mischief of subletting as a ground for eviction under rent
control laws, two ingredients have to be established, (one) parting with
possession of tenancy or part of it by tenant in favour of a third party with
exclusive right of possession and (two) that such parting with possession
has been done without the consent of the landlord and in lieu of
compensation or rent.
(ii) Inducting a partner or partners in the business or profession by a tenant by
itself does not amount to subletting. However, if the purpose of such
partnership is ostensible and a deed of partnership is drawn to conceal the
real transaction of subletting, the court may tear the veil of partnership to
find out the real nature of transaction entered into by the tenant.
(iii) The existence of deed of partnership between tenant and alleged sub-tenant
or ostensible transaction in any other form would not preclude the landlord
from bringing record material and circumstances, by adducing evidence or by
means of cross-examination, making out a case of sub-letting or parting with
possession in tenancy premises by the tenant in favour of a third person.
(iv) If tenant is actively associated with the partnership business and retains the
control over the tenancy premises with him, may be along with partners, the
tenant may not be said to have parted with possession.
(v) Initial burden of proving subletting is on landlord but once he is able to
establish that a third party is in exclusive possession of the premises and that
tenant has no legal possession of the tenanted premises, the onus shifts to
tenant to prove the nature of occupation of such third party and that he
(tenant) continues to hold legal possession in tenancy premises.
(vi) In other words, initial burden lying on landlord would stand discharged by
adducing prima facie proof of the fact that a party other than tenant was in
exclusive possession of the premises. A presumption of sub-letting may then
be raised and would amount to proof unless rebutted.”

Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the
case on hand and on appreciation of evidence on record, we are of the opinion that
there is no genuine partnership between respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2.

Memorial for Respondent

Respondent no. 1 has come out with a case of partnership only to get out from the
allegation of sub-letting.
The exclusive possession of the suit premises is with respondent no. 2. Respondent
no. 2 is running the business in the suit premises as an owner. Sales Tax Certificate
and the licence are in the name of respondent no. 2. The bank accounts are in the
name of respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 is exclusively dealing with the bank
accounts. Under the circumstances, a clear case of sub-letting has been made out.
The High Court has committed a grave error in setting aside the decree of eviction on
the ground of sub-letting

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside and the
judgment and decree passed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority is hereby
restored. There shall be a decree on the ground of sub-letting. Respondents to
handover the peaceful possession of the suit premises to the appellant herein within
a period of three months from today on filing usual undertaking before this Court
and on payment of full arrears of rent within a period of four weeks from today.

Memorial for Respondent

 STATEMENT OF JURISIDCTION
The Supreme Court in India has three types of jurisdictions – original, appellate and
advisory as provided in Articles 131, 133 – 136 and 143 respectively of the Indian
Constitution.

1. Article No.131: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

2. Article No.132 : Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts
in certain cases
3. Article No.133 : Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in appeals from High Courts in
regard to civil matters
4. Article No.136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court

The Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court under the jurisdiction as provided by the
Constitution of India w.r.t. the highest appellate authority to the court i.e. Supreme Court
of India

Memorial for Respondent

 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether tenant is allowed to subletting the property without the consent of the
owner ?

2. Whether the High Court is justified in setting aside the eviction decree on the
ground of sub-letting ?

Memorial for Respondent

 PROVISON OF LAW INVOLVED

Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and 10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Section 10(2): A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the controller
for a direction in that behalf. If the controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied.

(i) that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent amount due by him in respect of
the building in 15 days after expiry of time fixed in agreement of tenancy with his
landlord.

(ii) that the tenant has after 23rd October 1945 without consent of the landlord.

(a) transferred has right under the lease or sublet the entire building on any portion
thereof.

(b) Used the building for purpose other than that for which it was leased.

Section 10(3): Tenant has committed/caused to be committed such acts of waste as

are likely to impair materially the value or utility of the building.

Memorial for Respondent

 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

 The owner of the suit premises had executed a power of attorney in the name of the
appellant. By way of rental agreement the appellant let out the premises to
respondent-1 for running ‘Best Mark Super Market’ on a monthly rent. An advance
amount was paid by way of security. The rent was payable on the 7th day of every
month. The appellant filed an eviction suit on the ground of sub-letting and arrears of
rent against the respondents and another. Under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(2)(ii)(a)(b) and
10(2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act).
 According to the appellant, upon default in payment of rent and noticing a change in
the name as well as ownership of the shop in the tenanted premises from ‘Best Mark
Super Market’ to ‘Amutham Super Market’. She made enquiries and discovered that
there was a change of hand from respondent-1 to respondent-2. And it was a gross
breach of the rent agreement.
 According to the appellant, the sub-letting was evident from the Certificate of
Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu, Commercial Tax Department. Therefore,
the appellant issued a legal notice to the respondent. And called upon him to collect
balance amount from the advance payment deposited, after adjusting the arrears of
rent and handover possession of the tenanted premises within 15 days.
 According to the respondents they were running ‘Amutham Super Market’ in the suit
property. According to them, there were many branches viz., ‘Amutham Jewellery,
Amutham Foods, Amutham Electronics, Amutham Textiles etc. According to the
original tenant since the respondents refused to give the business in the name of the
appellant, she filed eviction petition with an ulterior motive.
 The Rent Control Appellate Authority passed the eviction decree on the ground of
subletting only. And, dismissed the petition filed under Section 10(2)(iii) of the Act.
 The High Court has set aside the eviction order passed by the Rent Control Appellate
Authority.

Memorial for Respondent

 INDEX OF AUTHORITY

1. STATUTES

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960

The Code of Civil Procedure 1908

2. CASE LAWS

a) Associated Hotels of India Limited v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC
933, i: if the landlord prima facie shows that the third party is in exclusive
possession of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then be
for the tenant to rebut the evidence.
b) G.K. Bhatnagar v. Abdul Alim, (2002) 9 SCC 516 and Helper Girdharbhai v.
Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri, (1987) 3 SCC 538: where a tenant becomes a
partner of a partnership firm and allows the firm to carry on business in the
premises while he himself retains the legal possession thereof, the act of the
tenant does not amount to sub-letting. It is further observed and held that
however inducting the partner in his business or profession by the tenant is
permitted so long as such partnership is genuine. It is further observed that if the
purpose of such partnership is ostensible in carrying on business or profession in
a partnership but the real purpose in sub-letting such premises to such other
person who is inducted ostensibly as a partner then the same shall be deemed to
be an act of subletting.

3. DYNAMIC LINKS

www. indiankanoon.org

Memorial for Respondent

 PRAYER CLAUSE

In the light of issue raised, pleadings advanced and authorities cited, the councels for the
respondents humbly pray that this Hon’ble court to adjudge and declare that
1. The order issued by the Hon’ble High Court should be retained so and the decision of
the Court to be followed.
2. Any other granted in favour of the applicant be set aside and nullified.
3. Any other order may be deemed fit in favour of the respondent and to the best
interest of justice, fairness, equity and good conscience, the respondent shall ever
pray.

Place – Tamil Nadu

Date – 29/12/2020 Respondent

Madhvendra Pratap Singh

(Student Advocate for Respondent)

Memorial for Respondent

 AFFIDAVIT

I, Bala Venkatram (D) Through Lr & Anr, Occupation– Service, Age- 45 years, Resident
of Nashik, do state on solemn affirmation that all that is state is in appeal memo is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and understanding.

Henceforth I have signed here in under.

Place – Tamil Nadu

Date – 29/12/2020 Deponent,
Madhvendra Pratap Singh
Student Advocate for Respondent

VERIFICATION

I, Bala Venkatram (D) Through Lr & Anr, Occupation– Service, Age- 45 years, Resident
of Nashik, do state that all above content are true and correct as stated by me as per
my knowledge and belief

In witness I have put my signature

Place – Tamil Nadu

Date – 29/12/2020 Deponent
Madhvendra Pratap Singh
Student Advocate for Respondent

Memorial for Respondent