Hazuri Singh vs Vijay Singh

P.R. Sharma, J.—This is an applicatio in revision against the order dated the 10th of March, 1960 passed by the First Civil judge Class II, Gwalior in Civil Original Suit No. 195 of 1959 whereby he has ordered the present application along with non-application Nos. 2 and 3 to pay provisional rent at the rate of Rs. 35 p.m. during the pendency of the suit.

The suit was for ejectment of Defendant No. 1 who is a tenant and of the other two Defendants, of whom the present application is one, as sub-tenant of Defendant No. 1. On the 9th of January, 1960 an application was filed by the Plaintiff u/s 5 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act praying for an order for deposit of inform rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 35 p.m.. This prayer was allowed by the Court by its order dated the 10th of March 1960.

The present applicant contends that Section 5 (a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act can have no application to him inasmuch as there is no agreement between him and the Plaintiff whereby he was to pay any rent directly to him. This contention was repelled by the trial Court on the ground that the definition of the word ''Tenant'' as contained in Section 3 (f) of the Act includes as sub-tenant.

The question which therefore arises, for consideration in the present case is whether a sub-tenant who had agreed to pay rent not to the landlord but to the tenant can be ordered to pay interim rent u/s 5(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. It is no doubt true that the detonation of ward ''tenant'' as contained in the Act includes a sub-tenant. But the trial Court has in my opinion over-looked the ''tenant'' cannot necessarily apply in all the contexts in which that word may be found to the used in the provisions of the Act. Maxwell in his Interpretation of Statutes has observed as follows:-

If a defined expression is used in a context which the definition will not fit, the context must be allowed to prevail over the "artificial conceptions" of the definition clause, and the word must be given its ordinary meaning. [See Stralhern v. Padden, 1926 SC (J) 9.]

If the definition of the word ''tenant'' were to be applied indiscriminately to all those provisions where the word: ''tenant'' occurs in the Act Clause (e) of Section 4 would become unworkable, since a tenant were to include a sub-tenant then he could not sub-let to a person who himself is a tenant. In Section 5 (a) of the Act Provisional rent can be ordered to be paid "according to the terms of the agreement''. The word ''agreement'' necessarily refers to an agreement with the landlord. An agreement between the tenant and a sub-tenant cannot in my opinion, be treated as covered by the provisions of Clause (a) to S. 5 of the Act. It would apper that any other interpretation would lead to absurd results. If there is a tenant arid there are sub-tenants who have agreed to pay rent only to him and if the sub-tenants are required to deposit in Court the entire amount of rent agreed to be paid by the tenant, they shall be depositing much more than they agreed to pay to the tenant. Such a result could not possibly have been contemplated by the legislature. If on the other hand a sub-tenant was to deposit only as mach rent as the had agreed to a pay to the tenant the payment would not be according to the agreement between the tenant and the landlord. I am therefore clearly of the opinion that in a suit where ejectment of the tenant is sought on the ground that he has sub-let the whole or a portion of the teanted premises to a sub-tenant or sub-tenants the latter cannot be deemed to be included in the definition of the word ''tenant''.

I would, therefore, allow this'' revision application and set aside the trial Court''s order in so far as it relates to the present applicant and non-applicant No 3. The order shall remain intact in so far as the Defendant No. 1, who is the tenant is concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.