{"id":257712,"date":"2021-11-26T10:00:43","date_gmt":"2021-11-26T04:30:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=257712"},"modified":"2021-11-26T12:52:46","modified_gmt":"2021-11-26T07:22:46","slug":"explained-does-chennai-city-tenants-protection-act-1921-protects-tenants-who-have-sub-let-or-given-the-building-to-third-parties","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/26\/explained-does-chennai-city-tenants-protection-act-1921-protects-tenants-who-have-sub-let-or-given-the-building-to-third-parties\/","title":{"rendered":"Explained| Does Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 protects tenants who have sub-let or given the building to third parties?\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*<\/strong>, JJ has reiterated the position that the tenants would not be entitled to benefit and rights under the Chennai City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 unless they are in actual physical possession of the building constructed by them.<\/p>\n

Clarifying the aforesaid position, the Court held that in case the tenants have let out or sub-let the building or given it to third parties, including dealers or licensees, they would not be entitled to protection and benefit under the Tenants Act.<\/p>\n

In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. R. Chandramouleeswaran, (2020) 11 SCC 718, <\/strong>while interpreting sub-clause (b) to Section 2(4)(ii), the Court had held that the expression \u201cactual physical possession of land and building\u201d would mean and require the tenant to be in actual possession and sub\u00acclause (b) would not apply if the tenant has sub\u00aclet the building or has given the premises on leave and licence basis.<\/p>\n

In Bharat\u00a0Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Nirmala, (2020) 11 SCC\u00a0738<\/strong>, the Court had lucidly explained the legal position and had held,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cOn a plain reading of sub\u00acclause (b) we notice that it uses the words \u201cactual physical possession\u201d. Had\u00a0\u00a0 the word \u201cpossession\u201d alone been used in clause (b), as has been done in clause (a), the legal position may have been different. However, the words \u201cactual physical possession\u201d are strong and emphatic. That means that the factual state of affairs has to be seen, not the legal or deemed state of affairs. There is no doubt that the appellant had handed over possession to his licensee\/agent who was in actual physical possession of the suit premises. When a statute uses strong and emphatic words, we cannot twist or give a strained interpretation to the said words.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[National Company v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1042<\/b><\/a>, decided on 11.11.2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n

For appellant: Senior Advocate V. Giri<\/p>\n

For respondents: Senior Advocate Kailash Vasdev<\/p>\n

\n

*Judgment by: Justice BR Gavai<\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge| Justice B.R. Gavai<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n