In Brief
The appellants owned three shop rooms that were originally leased to a single tenant. The tenant sub-let one of the three rooms without consent. The High Court had ordered eviction only from the sub-let room. The Supreme Court held that sub-letting any portion of a single tenancy premises—without the landlord's consent—entitles the landlord to evict from the entire premises, not just the sub-let part. The Court allowed the appeal, granting eviction from all three rooms and gave the tenant six months to vacate. The Court also held that pure questions of law arising from established facts can be examined even if raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.