Once Landlord Proves Absence Of Original Tenant & Third-Party Possession, Onus To Rebut Presumption Of Unlawful Sub-Letting Shifts To Tenant: Supreme Court

The Court reiterated that in cases of alleged subletting, once the landlord establishes exclusive possession of a third party and absence of the original tenant, a presumption arises, shifting the burden onto the tenant to justify such possession.

the respondents failed to rebut this presumption, as no credible evidence was produced to establish a valid partnership, lawful induction, or consent of the landlord.

The Court also examined the defence of “partnership reconstitution” and reiterated that while a genuine partnership does not amount to sub-letting, such arrangements cannot be used as a camouflage to conceal unlawful transfer of possession. It emphasised that courts are entitled to pierce the veil of such arrangements to ascertain the real nature of the transaction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned findings of the trial court and in failing to apply the settled principles governing sub-letting and burden of proof.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the eviction order passed by the trial court was restored. The respondents were granted three months to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the premises to the appellants.

Cause Title: Sri M.V. Ramachandrasa (Since Deceased) v. M/s Mahendra Watch Company & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 348)