What did the Supreme Court decide in Anand Nivas v. Anandji Kalyanji?

The Court held that a statutory tenant has no estate or transferable interest in the premises and therefore cannot sublet any portion. Section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act did not convert the sub-tenant into a direct tenant on termination of the head lease.

Who is a statutory tenant under the Bombay Rent Act, 1947?

A person who remains in lawful possession after the contractual lease ends, protected from eviction if rent is paid and terms are observed. The protection is personal and does not give a transferable estate.

Does Section 14 create tenancy rights for a sub-tenant after the main lease ends?

No. Section 14 did not give the appellant any independent tenancy right once the statutory tenant’s right stood determined.

Why can’t a statutory tenant sublet?

Because they have no assignable estate or interest in the property—only a personal right to remain. Without an estate, there is nothing to transfer to a sub-tenant.

Anand Nivas P Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi 1965 SC

Anand Nivas (Private) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi & Ors. — AIR 1965 SC 414

Rent Control & Tenancy Supreme Court of India 1965 AIR 1965 SC 414 ~7 min

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi • LOCATION: India • PUBLISH_DATE: October 31, 2025

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: statutory tenant, subletting, Section 14, Bombay Rent Act 1947, AIR 1965 SC 414
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: eviction protection, no transferable estate, Gujarat High Court, Small Causes Court, tenancy definition

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court made one simple point: a statutory tenant stays only by protection of the Bombay Rent Act. This protection is personal. It does not give an estate in the property. Because there is no estate to transfer, a statutory tenant cannot sublet. So the sub-tenant here did not become a direct tenant under Section 14.

Issues

Can a statutory tenant, after the lease ends, lawfully sublet any part of the premises?
Does Section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act turn a sub-tenant into a direct tenant when the head lease is over?

Rules

A statutory tenant has no estate or transferable interest in the premises.
“Tenant” under the Act includes a person continuing in possession after expiry, but the right is only a shield from eviction, not ownership or assignable interest.
Protection continues while rent is paid and conditions are followed, but it does not bring a right to sublet.

Facts (Timeline)

Optional Images

Timeline visual for Anand Nivas statutory tenancy dispute

5 Mar 1950: Lease for five years granted to Maneklal Mafatlal.

Post-expiry: Mafatlal stayed on as a statutory tenant under the Bombay Rent Act, paying rent and claiming protection.

Eviction action: Landlords filed for eviction and arrears. A decree was obtained in June 1960.

Subletting: During proceedings, Mafatlal sublet a part to the present appellant (Anand Nivas (P) Ltd).

Litigation: Landlords sought to evict both. Appellant claimed direct tenancy under Section 14.

Lower Courts: Injunction suit failed in Small Causes Court; Gujarat High Court held statutory tenant had no authority to sublet.

Appeal: Matter came to the Supreme Court by special leave.

Arguments

Appellant (Anand Nivas (P) Ltd)

Once the lease ended, the sub-tenant should become a direct tenant under Section 14.
Possession was lawfully derived from the head tenant; eviction should be restrained.
Rent was being paid; protection of the Act should extend to the sub-tenant.

Respondents (Landlords)

A statutory tenant has no estate; hence, no power to sublet any portion.
Section 14 does not convert an unlawful subletting into a direct tenancy.
Decree for eviction must be enforced against both head tenant and sub-tenant.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the Act does not permit a statutory tenant to sublet. Such a tenant has no estate or transferable interest in the premises. Therefore, the appellant did not acquire any direct tenancy by virtue of Section 14 when the head tenancy ended.

The Act gives only a protective right to remain; it is not a transferable property right.
Section 14 did not and could not create a fresh tenancy in favour of the sub-tenant in this situation.

Ratio

A statutory tenant’s right is personal and non-transferable. With no estate in the premises, there can be no valid subletting. Section 14 does not elevate a sub-tenant to a direct tenant on termination of the head lease.

Why It Matters

Draws a clear line between possession-protection and property interest.
Guides courts on Section 14 claims by sub-tenants after expiry of head leases.
Helps landlords and tenants plan lawful occupancy and transfers.

Key Takeaways

No estate → No sublet.
Statutory protection is personal, not transferable.
Section 14 does not create a new tenancy for sub-tenants here.
Eviction decrees can run against both head tenant and sub-tenant in such cases.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Stay, not Transfer” — Statutory tenants may stay, but cannot transfer.

Check status: Is the head tenant only a statutory tenant?
Check power: Any estate to pass on? (No.)
Check Section 14: Does it elevate sub-tenant? (No in this case.)

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can a statutory tenant lawfully sublet, and does Section 14 create direct tenancy for the sub-tenant?

Rule: Statutory tenant has no estate; protection is personal. Section 14 does not convert sub-tenant into direct tenant on termination.

Application: Head tenant lacked transferable interest; subletting failed; appellant gained no independent right under Section 14.

Conclusion: Subletting invalid; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

Statutory Tenant: A person who stays after the lease ends, protected by statute from eviction if conditions are met.
Estate/Interest: A transferable legal right in property. A statutory tenant lacks this.
Section 14 (Bombay Rent Act): Provision often cited on sub-tenants’ claims; did not help the appellant here.