Can a tenant be evicted for subletting done by a parent?

No. Eviction under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) requires that the present tenant himself created the sub-tenancy without permission.

What proof is needed for unlawful subletting?

The landlord must show the current tenant created the sub-tenancy and that it lacked the landlord’s written consent as required by law or lease.

Does long silence by the landlord matter?

Yes. Long, open occupation without objection can weaken the landlord’s case when alleging old unlawful subletting.

Who controls tenancy breaches from the past?

Liability is personal. A successor-tenant is not punished for the predecessor’s acts unless he adopted or repeated the breach.

What was the final outcome?

Appeal dismissed. The tenant could not be evicted because he did not personally create the sub-tenancy and consent status was unproved.

A.S. Sulochana v. C. Dharmalingam

Supreme Court of India 1987 AIR 1987 SC 242 Rent Control / Tenancy Author: Gulzar Hashmi ~6 min read

India · PRIMARY: subletting, tenant eviction, Section 10(2)(ii)(a) · SECONDARY: predecessor liability, consent, rent control practice

```

Quick Summary

The landlord sought eviction because a sub-tenancy had been created decades earlier by the tenant’s father. The present tenant had not done it himself. The Supreme Court held: no eviction. Under Section 10(2)(ii)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act, the breach must be the current tenant’s act. Old subletting by a predecessor, especially without clear proof of lack of consent, cannot oust the successor-tenant.

Issues

Can a tenant be evicted for a sub-tenancy created by his predecessor?
Does Section 10(2)(ii)(a) require the present tenant’s own act of unlawful subletting?
How do consent and long silence by the landlord affect an eviction claim?

Rules

Liability is personal: eviction for subletting lies only if the tenant himself created the sub-tenancy without required consent.
Allegations must be proved with clear evidence, including lack of written consent where law or lease demands it.
Prolonged, open sub-occupation without objection may undermine the landlord’s case.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline of tenancy and alleged subletting events leading to the case

Pre-1952: Landlord’s father leased premises to the tenant’s father.

1952: Tenant’s father allegedly sublet to Kuppuswami Sah.

1968: Present tenant recognized after his father’s death; both original parties had passed away.

Knowledge: Neither side had personal knowledge of the original written terms or consent status.

1970: Landlord (now the daughter/heir) filed eviction alleging unlawful subletting.

High Court: Held that eviction lies only if the current tenant is guilty of contravention.

Supreme Court: Appeal by landlord under Article 136; final ruling favored the tenant.

Arguments

Landlord (Appellant)

Subletting existed; therefore eviction should follow.
No proof of written consent for the 1952 sub-tenancy.
Successor-tenant must answer for continuing breach.

Tenant (Respondent)

He never created the sub-tenancy; act was by his late father.
Consent position is unclear; burden lies on the landlord.
Long, open possession without objection weakens eviction claim.

Judgment (Supreme Court of India)

Judgment concept image with gavel and tenancy documents

Appeal dismissed. High Court view affirmed.
Section 10(2)(ii)(a) targets the tenant’s own unlawful subletting, not the predecessor’s act.
No clear proof that the 1952 subletting lacked written consent.
Years of silence during the landlord’s father’s lifetime further reduced the claim’s strength.

Ratio Decidendi

Eviction for unlawful subletting under the Tamil Nadu Act requires a breach by the present tenant. A historical sub-tenancy by a predecessor does not, by itself, justify eviction—especially when consent is uncertain.

Why It Matters

Protects successors from penalties for acts they did not commit.
Clarifies burden of proof on landlords for old subletting claims.
Encourages timely action and proper documentation of consent.

Key Takeaways

Personal fault rule: target the current tenant’s act.

Consent matters: written consent can defeat eviction.

Delay and silence can weaken landlord claims.

Burden of proof stays with the landlord.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “MY ACT, OR NO EVICT”

MY ACT: Present tenant must have sublet.
OR: If consent is unclear, doubt helps tenant.
NO EVICT: Old predecessor’s act alone is not enough.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can the tenant be evicted for a sub-tenancy created by his father decades earlier?

Rule: Section 10(2)(ii)(a) needs the current tenant’s own unlawful subletting (without required consent).

Application: The respondent did not create the 1952 sub-tenancy; consent unproved; landlord delayed for years.

Conclusion: Eviction fails; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

Subletting: When a tenant lets the whole or part of the premises to someone else.
Written Consent: Landlord’s formal permission required by law or lease to validate subletting.
Successor-Tenant: A person recognized as tenant after the original tenant’s death.