Author Name:   hanifmulia

Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the Bombay Rent Act.

Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on:
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

1. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.1 - Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Amendment Act (22 of 1972), S.3 and Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S.11 - Matter heard and finally decided - Question of law relating to jurisdiction of Court (in this case, relating to applicability of Bombay Rent Law to Kirkee Cantonment) - Erroneous decision - Decision does not operate as res judicate.

1) Where the executing Court had refused to exercise jurisdiction and to execute the decree on the ground that the decree was a nullity as the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, had no application to buildings in Cantonment areas, that defect having been removed and all decrees obtained on the basis that the Bombay rent law applied to the Kirkee Cantonment area having been validated by Act 22 of 1972, it cannot be said that the earlier decision holding that the decree was a nullity operated as res judicata. - Jai Singh Jairam Tyagi v/s Maman Chand Ratilal Agarwal, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1201.

2. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.4 and S.28 - Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.105 , S.108 - Houses and Rents - Premises belonging to Government or a local authority- Act does not apply even as between lessee of such premises and his sub-tenant -"Belonging to" -Meaning of.
1) The first part of S.4(1) Provides that the Act shall not apply to any premises belonging to Government or a Local authority. The Legislature did not by the first part intend to exempt the relationship of landlord and tenant but intended to confer on the premises itself an immunity from the operation of the Act.

2) It is not correct to say that the immunity given by the first part should be held to be available only to the Government or a local authority to which the premises belong. If that were the intention, then the Legislature would have used phraseology similar to what it did in the second part, namely, it would have expressly made the Act inapplicable "as against the Government or a local authority". This it did not do and the only inference that can be drawn from this circumstance is that this departure was made deliberately with a view to exempt the premises itself. Therefore, the first part of the section should be so construed as to exempt the premises from the operation of the Act, not only as between the Government or a local authority on the one hand and its lessee on the other, but also as between that lessee and his sub-tenant.

3) A plot of land belonging to the Board of Trustees for the improvement of City of Bombay was put to auction on certain terms and conditions for the purpose of granting a building lease. One S who was the highest bidder signed the memorandum of agreement incorporating the conditions upon which the auction was held. By cl. 7 of these conditions, S agreed, within the time specified therein to build and complete at his own cost of not less than Rs. 50,000 a building of particular specification. Clause 18 of the conditions provided that immediately after the completion of the building within the time specified the Trustees shall grant to S or his nominee a lease of the said plot with buildings thereon for the term of 999 years from the date of the auction at an yearly rent calculated in accordance with the accepted bidding for the plot. The Trustees, pursuant to the said agreement and in consideration of the monies which had been expended in the erection of the buildings and of the rent and the covenants thereinafter reserved and contained, (see para 3 of the judgment) demised unto the lessee all that piece of land together with the buildings erected thereon to hold the same for 999 years. In 1948 the successor-in-interest of S brought a suit in the City Civil Court for ejectment against the defendant who was a sub-tenant of one of the blocks in the demised premises, alter giving a notice to quit. The sub-tenant claimed protection under Bombay Act 57 of 1947 and that under S. 28 of that Act the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit:

4) Held in the facts and circumstances, the demised premises including the building belonged to the Board which was a local authority and therefore were outside the operation at the Act in view of S. 4 (1). The fact that the lessee incurred expenses in putting up the building was precisely the consideration for the lessor granting him a lease for 999 years not only of the building but of the land as well at what may be a cheap rent which the lessor may not have otherwise agreed to do. By the agreement the building became part of the land and the property of the lessor and the lessee took a lease on that footing. The lessee or a person claiming title through him could not now be heard to say that the building did not belong to the lessor. Forfeiture does not, for the first time, give title to the lessor. On forfeiture he has all along been his own property. The interest of the lessor in the demised premises could not possibly be described as a contingent interest which would become vested on the expiry or sooner determination of the lease. The City Civil Court had, therefore, jurisdiction to entertain the suit.- Messrs. Bhatia. Co-operative Housing- Society Limited v/s D. C. Patel, reported in AIR 1953 SC 16 (Four Judges).

3. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.4(1) and S.(4)(a) - lease - tenancy - Exemption from operation of Act - Premises-belonging to Govt. or Local Authority - Premises belonging to Port Trust taken on lease - Lessee letting out premises to sub-tenants - Case does not fall under S.4(4)(a) - Protection under Act is not available to sub-lessees.
1) S.4(1) makes it clear that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are not applicable to premises belonging to the Govt. or a local authority. Sub-sec. (4)(a) of S.4 which was added in 1953 only takes out from the scope of the exemption conferred by S.4(1) "a building erected on any land held by any person from the Government or a local authority under an agreement, lease, licence or other grant, although having regard to the provisions of such agreement, lease, licence or grant the building so erected may belong or continue to belong to the Government or the local authority, as the case may be". In fact, a plain reading of the provisions of sub-sec.(4)(a) in the context clearly shows that there is no intention therein to take out a building put up by the Government or a local authority from the scope of the exemption conferred by sub-sec.(1) of S.4. In fact, the language of sub-sec.(4)(a) and sub-sec.(1) of S.4 of the Bombay Rent Act read together suggests that it was only in respect of a building put up by the lessee on the Government land or land belonging to a local authority under a building agreement that the sub-lessees were taken out of the exemption contained in sub-sec.(1) of S.4 and allowed the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act. It is significant that the exemption granted under the earlier part of sub-sec. (1) of S.4 is in respect of the premises and not in respect of the relationship. In order to confer the protection of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act to the sub-lessees occupying the premises in any building erected on Government land or on land belonging to a local authority irrespective of the question who has put up the building as against the lessees of the land but without affecting the immunity conferred to the Government or local authorities as contemplated by sub-sec.(1) of S.4 of the Bombay Rent Act, the Court would have practically rewritten the provisions of S.4 and it is not open to the Court to do that. It is for the legislature to do that. - Nagji Vallabhji and Com. v/s Meghji Vijpar Meghji Vijpar, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1313, para Nos. 9 & 13.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), (as amended by Bombay Act 4 of 1953) S.4(1) and S.4(4)(a) - houses and rents - amendment - lease - Houses and Rents - Scope and applicability - Effect of amendment - Suit for vacant possession of site granted by Port Trust Authorities with buildings on it - Suit is governed by S. 4 sub-sec. (1) and not sub-sec. (4) (a) - Suit filed in City Civil Court is competent - Lessee unable to evict sub- tenants and deliver vacant possession in view of prohibitions contained in the Act - Not Sufficient to defeat right of Port Trust Authorities.

The amendment of S. 4 by the addition of sub-sec. (4) (a) by Bombay Act 4 of 1953, was enacted to cut down by a definition the operation of the words "any premises belonging to the Government or a local authority by excluding only buildings which were occupied by sub tenants even though the buildings belonged to the Government or continued to belong to it. Clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) excluded also S. 15, which prohibited sub-letting by a tenant. That, however, was limited to the case of buildings only, and did not apply to the case of land. In this situation, any action by the Government or the local authority in respect of land falls to be governed by sub-sec. (1) and not sub sec. (4) (a), and sub-sec. (1) puts the case in relation to land entirely out of the Rent Control Act. The net result, therefore, is that if Government or a local authority wants to evict a person from the land, the provisions of the Rent Control Act do not come in the way. For the same reason, the suit for ejectment does not have to be filed in the court of Small Causes, as required by the Rent Control Act but in the City Civil Court.

Where under a lease of land with buildings on it, granted by the Bombay Port Trust Authorities, the lessee is entitled to remove the buildings on the site within one month after eviction, the circumstance that the lease cannot evict his sub-tenants on account of the protection granted to them under the Rent Control Act, so as to remove the building in exercise of the right conferred on him, is unfortunate but does not service to entitle him to defeat the rights of the Port Trust Authorities. They are only claiming vacant possession of the site, and under the agreement, if the lessee does not remove the buildings within one month, then they would be entitled to take possession of the land with the buildings, whatever might be the rights of the sub- tenants. - Kanji Manji v/s The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, reported in AIR 1963 SC 486 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5, S.6, S.11 - words and phrases - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Premises - Meaning of - Material date for ascertaining whether plot is premises is date of letting and not date of application for fixation of standard rent.

Before the tenant could maintain an application for fixation of standard rent under S. 11 she had to establish that the plot of land leased was premises within the meaning of S. 5 (8) and that it was let for residence, education, business, trade or storage. Reading S. 5 (8) with S. 6 (1), it is manifest that Part II of the Act can apply in areas specified in Sch II to lands (not being used for agricultural purpose) let for residence, education, business, trade or storage. The material date for ascertaining whether the plot is 'premises' for purposes of S. 6 is the date of letting and not the date on which the application for fixation of standard rent is made by the tenant or the landlord. Where the plot was assessed for agricultural purposes on the date of the lease it could not be regarded as premises inviting the application of Part II. - Mst. Subhadra v/s Narsaji Chenaji Marwadi, reported in AIR 1966 SC 806 (Four Judges).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5, S.7, S.11 - Standard rent - Provisions pegging it down to rent paid on 1-9-1940 or first rent paid for premises let out after 1-9-1940, is said to be reasonable? - Held. No.

In so far as social legislation, like the Rent Control Act is concerned, the law must strike a balance between rival interests and it should try to be just to all. The law ought not to be unjust to one and give a disproportionate benefit or protection to another section of the society. When there is shortage of accommodation it is desirable, may necessary that some protection should be given to the tenants in order to ensure that they are not exploited. At the same time such a law has to be revised periodically so as to ensure that a disproportionately larger benefit than the one which was intended is not given to the tenants. - Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v/s State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1998 SC 602 (FB), para 28.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(3), S.13(1),- Eviction - Expression 'Landlord' - Includes usufructuary mortgagee of tenanted premises and, therefore, he can evict tenant on ground of nuisance.- Narpatchand A. Bhandari v/s Shantilal Moolshankar Jani, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1712.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(c) - Eviction - Ground - Nuisance or annoyance by tenant - Tenant of a unit (flat) in multi-tenanted premises and putting up textile printing mill on common terrace and running it at night and using water from common overhead tank. Also Removed aerials, antenna of other tenants. Whether such act of tenant constitute acts of nuisance or annoyance. -Held. Yes.- Narpatchand A. Bhandari v/s Shantilal Moolshankar Jani, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1712.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) - Sections 5(4a) and 15-A - Under an agreement of lease and licence D allowed W to occupy the shop premises in question. The agreement provided that "it shall remain in force for 11 months and will automatically come to an end on 31-3-1966 on which day W shall remove himself from the premises of his own accord." By efflux of time the licence stood revoked on 1-4-66 but W did not vacate and remove himself from the premises as per the term of the agreement. In spite of being asked by D to do so W did not pay any heed. Hence D took recourse to Section 41. Defence of W that he was a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act (1947) was rejected. During pendency of the proceedings Sections 5 (4a) and 15-A were introduced in the Bombay Rent Act by an amendment in 1973. W claimed the protection conferred on the licensee under Section 15-A. - Held that W was not entitled to the protection conferred on a licensee by Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act. D was entitled to an order for possession under Section 43.

In order to get the advantage of Section 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act, the occupant must be in occupation of the premises as a licensee as defined in Section 5(4A) on the 1st of February, 1973. If he be such a licensee, the non obstante clause of Section 15-A (1) gives him the status and protection of a tenant in spite of there being anything to the contrary in any other law or in any contract. In other words, even as against the express terms of the subsisting contract of licence the licensee would enjoy the benefits of Section 15-A. But if he is not a licensee under a subsisting agreement on the 1st of February 1973, then he does not get the advantage of the amended provision of the Bombay Rent Act. A person continuing in possession of the premises after termination, withdrawal or revocation of the licence continues to occupy it as a trespasser or as a person who has no semblance of any right to continue in occupation of the premises. Such a person by no stretch of imagination can be called a licensee. If, therefore, W was not a licensee under a subsisting agreement in occupation of the premises on the 1st of February 1973 he could not take shelter under Section 15-A.

It is wholly wrong to say that if a licensor filed an application under Section 41 of the S.C.C. Act instead of filing a regular civil suit he by implication treated the occupant of the premises against whom the S.C.C. application was filed as a subsisting licensee.

There was nothing to show in the records of this case that D had ever accepted any money either in or outside court from W after 31st of March, 1966 by way of any rent of the licenced premises. A person continuing in occupation of such premises after revocation of the licence is still liable to pay compensation or damages for their use and occupation. If at any time such compensation had been paid or accepted it could not undo the effect of the revocation of the licence. - D. H. Maniar v/s Waman Laxman Kudav, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2340 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(4A) , S.5(6A) - Paying guest or licensee - Licensee becomes paying guest if licensor resides in same premises and for that licensor need not reside in same room in which licensee resides. Moreover residence of licensor in remaining part of premises need not be physical residence. Dejure control over remaining premises would be sufficient.

All that is required to make a licensee answer the description of a paying guest is that the licensor also resides in the premises of which a part is in the possession of the paying guest and it is not required that the licensor should physically reside in the same room as the paying guest. The words in which the licensor resides qualify the words 'premises' which immediately precede the said words and are not intended to qualify 'part of the premises'. It is also not necessary that the licensor must be using the remaining part of the premises for actual residence. The position of a 'paying guest' is similar to the position of a 'lodger' in England. If the part is in the use of the 'lodger' and the owner retains the control of the whole house, that is sufficient. Surendra Kumar Jain v/s Royce Pereira, reported in AIR 1998 SC 394, para Nos.14 to 16.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(7), S.7, S.10AA.
Amount of educational cess is recoverable by the landlord from the tenant under S. 10AA of the Rent Act.. Section 7 of the Rent Act does not prohibit the recovery of the increase to which landlord may be entitled under the provisions of the Act in addition to the standard rent. Sections 5(7), 9, 10 and 10AA of the Rent Act indicate that permitted increase becomes part of the rent. The building can well be said to be reasonably expected to be let at the figure arrived at by adding the permitted increase to the standard rent. The valuation has therefore, to be arrived at after taking into account the amount of educational cess levied by the Corporation. Even if it leads to some kind of inconvenience of variation in valuation at frequent intervals that can be no consideration for not giving full effect and meaning to the provisions of the Act of 1888 and the Rent Act. - Bombay Municipal Corporation , Appellant v. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1584 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(8) - 'Premises' - Lease of land having no building thereon, for making construction for installing machines. Building constructed on that land and machinery also installed. Whether same can be termed as 'premises' under Rent Act?- Held. Yes.

So far the facts of the present case are concerned, the lease had been granted to the Binny Company for installing ginning and processing machines and admittedly a building was constructed in which ginning and processing machines were installed and godown was also constructed. Once a piece of land which was agricultural in nature is put to non-agricultural use, it shall be covered by the definition of 'premises' under Section 5(8) of the Bombay Rent Act. - Nalanikant Ramadas, Gujjar v/s Tulasibai, reported in AIR 1997 SC 404 (Five Judges).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(10) , S.12 and S.12(3)(a) - houses and rents - Fixation of standard rent - Application for fixation of rent dismissed for non-prosecution – Effect of.

Where a tenant does not prosecute an application for fixation of standard rent and deliberately permits it to be dismissed for non-prosecution it could be reasonably inferred that it was not a bona fide application at all. Where in a case. it was admitted that the agreed rent was Rs. 30/- p. m.,. that would be the "standard rent" as defined by Section 5 (10) of the Act. That was the rate at which rent was payable. Non-prosecution of the application for standard rent indicated that there was no real dispute regarding the standard rent or permitted increases. In such a case, if the provisions of Section 12 (3) (a) are not shown to be complied with, the Court is bound to pass a decree for eviction.

The statutory protection can only be given in accordance with the terms on which it is permissible. The Act certainly does not confer a power upon the Court to excuse a violation of the provisions of the Act by making wrong assumptions or on compassionate grounds. The Court could not, therefore, exercise what would be, in effect, a power to condone infringement of the provisions of the Act.
A fixation of standard rent can only take place by means of the specified procedure provided for it. In the case in question the High Court seems to have accepted the erroneous view that standard rent was actually fixed by the appellate Court for the first time whereas what had happened was that the application for fixation of standard rent had been dismissed for non-prosecution. This was not "fixation" of standard rent. Hence, no question of giving time to pay up arrears after a "fixation" of standard rent arose in the case C.R. Appl. No. 67 of 1973, D/- 19-9-1975 (Guj), Reversed.- Mistry Premjibhai Vithaldas v/s Ganeshbhai Keshavji, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1707 (FB). Para Nos.10, 11 &13.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(10), S.7 - Whether standard rent can be altered and re-fixed if there is any structural alteration or change in the amenities? Held- No.

Section 11(a) is intended to enable the Court, upon an application in any suit or proceeding, to modify the standard rent as a result of structural alteration or change in the amenities involving further capital investment of the owner. However, demolition of a building is not one such contingency contemplated by S. 11(a) of the Act. - Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v/s Kamla Mills Ltd. Reported in AIR 2003 SC 2998, para No.36.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11)(b) - lease - Lease of certain watan land by father of A to R for storing timber - Death of father of A - R continued to be tenants within S. 5 (11) - Determination of lease consequent on death of father of A, not material.

Section 5 (11) (b) is clear that any person remaining, after the determination of the lease, in possession, with or without the assent of the landlord is also a tenant for the purposes of the Act. The learned counsel argued that the determination of the lease contemplated by Section 5 (11) (b) was determination by an act of the landlord and not determination by the operation of the law. We do not see any justification for so confining the meaning to be given to the expression 'the determination of the lease' in Section 5 (11) of the Act. - Tavangowda Tamangowda Patil v/s Yellappa Krishna Muchandni, reported in AIR 1980 SC 590.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11) (c) - Whether the status of a member in the case of tenant co-partnership housing society is that of a tenant within the meaning of S. 5(11) of the Rent Act 1947? Held- No.

As there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Society and the member. - M/s. Anita Enterprises v/s Belfer Co-op. Housing Society Ltd, reported AIR 2008 SC 746, para Nos.27 & 28.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11) (c) & 28- Tenant of co-partnership housing society inducting third person in his allotted accommodation. Whether such transfer establishes relationship of landlord and tenant, between member and third person?- Held- No.

Further held that The question regarding legality or otherwise of the creation of tenancy right by the member of tenant co-partnership society which amounts to transfer of interest of a member in the property of the Society, can be decided by raising a dispute before the Co-operative Court.- M/s. Anita Enterprises v/s Belfer Co-op. Housing Society Ltd, reported AIR 2008 SC 746, para Nos.33, 35 & 36.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11)(c)(ii) and S.15 - Tenant of non-residential premises continuing in occupation after contractual period is over - He cannot bequeath his right of occupation by will in favour of person who was not member of his family carrying on business at time of his death.

A person occupying a non-residential premises as a tenant after the contractual period is over cannot bequeath his right to occupy the property as a tenant under a Will in favour of a legatee who is not a member of his family carrying on business, trade or storage with him in the said premises at the time of his death under S. 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Act. There is no justification to saddle the landlord with the liability to treat a stranger who is not referred to in sub-clause (ii) of S. 5(11)(c) of the Act as a tenant on the basis of a bequest made under a Will by the tenant.

It is significant that both sub-clauses (i) and(ii) of Cl.(c) of sub-sec.(11) of S. 5 of the Act which deal with the devolution of the right to tenancy on the death of a tenant in respect of residential premises and premises let for business, trade or storage respectively do not provide that the said right of tenancy can devolve by means of testamentary disposition on a legatee who is not referred to in the respective sub-clauses. It has, therefore, to be understood that even the extended meaning given to the expression 'tenant' by sub-sec. (11) of S. 5 of the Act does not authorise the disposition of the right to the tenancy of the premises governed by the Act under a Will. Ordinarily it is only an interest that can be inherited that can be bequeathed. But the heritability of a tenancy after the determination of the lease, which is protected by the Act is restricted in the case of residential premises only to the members of the tenant's family mentioned in sub-clause(i) of Cl.(c) of S. 5(11) of the Act and in the case of premises let for business, trade or usage to members belonging to the family of the tenant carrying on business, trade or storage with the tenant in the premises at the time of the death of the tenant as may continue after his death to carry on the business, trade or storage as the case may be in the said premises and as may be decided in default of the agreement by the Court as provided in sub-cl.(ii) thereof. When the statute has imposed such a restriction, it is not possible to say that the tenant can bequeath the right to such tenancy in the case of premises let for business, trade or storage in favour of a person not possessing the qualification referred to in S. 5(11)(c)(ii) of the Act. It can also be seen that the words 'to assign or transfer in any other manner his interest therein ' in S. 15(1) of the Act had the effect of prohibiting the disposition of the tenancy right by a will in the absence of a contract to the contrary.

Further, when the Legislature has restricted the right to the tenancy of the premises let out for business, trade or storage to any member of a tenant's family carrying on business, trade or storage with the tenant at the time of his death it is not open to the Court by judicial construction to extend the said right to persons who are not members of the tenant's family who claim under testamentary succession.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11) - Statutory tenancy - Whether statutory tenancy which is personal to the tenant cannot be bequeathed at all under a Will in favour of anybody. - Question left open. - Bhavarlal Labhchand Shah v/s Kanaiyalal Nathalal Intawala, reported in AIR 1986 SC 600.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11)(c) - "Tenant" - Provision applies only to residential premises and not to business premises - Tenant of business premises - Member of his family cannot get protection under section. - Ganpat Ladha v/s Sashikant Vishnu Shinde, reported in AIR 1978 Sc 955 (FB)

This ratio is overruled by Smt. Gian Devi Anand , Appellant v. Jeevan Kumar, reported in Smt. Gian Devi Anand v/s Jeevan Kumar, reported in AIR 1985 SC 796 (Five Judges), wherein it is held that Statutory tenancy in respect of commercial premises is heritable and heirs of statutory tenant are entitled to same protection against eviction as afforded to tenant under Act.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11) (c), S.15(2) - tenancy - Validation of sub-tenancies by S.15(2) - Scope - Sub-tenancy created by sub-tenant - Benefit of S. 15(2) if available.

Section 15(2) which raises the ban from all sub-letting effected before 21-5-1959 provided the provisions of that sub-section are fulfilled relates to sub-tenancies not permitted by contract between the landlord and tenant and which would, but for the said sub-s. (2), fall within the prohibition enacted in the amended sub-section (1) of S. 15.

Upon the amendment of sub-s. (1) of S. 15 by the Ordinance and by its related Act, the prohibition against sub-letting did not operate in those cases where the sub-letting was permitted by contract between the landlord and tenant. In all such cases, if the landlord had permitted the tenant under a contract between them to sublet the premises, no question would arise of a need to validate those sub-tenancies. It is in this light that the scope of sub-s. (2) of S. 15 has to be determined. The removal by sub-s. (2) of S. 15 of the prohibition is limited only to those sub-tenancies which were created before May 21, 1959. Such a limitation would be inappropriate to sub-tenancies permitted by contract which could be created regardless of whether they were brought into existence before May 21, 1959 or after that date. Also, the sub-tenancies covered by sub-s(2) of S. 15 would be regarded as valid only if the sub-tenant had entered into possession before May 21, 1959 and was continued in possession on that date. Such a requirement would be wholly inconsistent in the case of sub-tenancies permitted by contract. Inasmuch as sub-s. (2) of S. 15 specifically attaches the condition that the sub-tenant should have been in possession before the commencement of the Ordinance and should have continued in possession on that date, it is apparent that such a provision could be related only to illegal sub-tenants, that is to say sub-tenants who were let in and given possession without any contractual right conferred by the landlord on the tenant to do so.

When the partnership firm G, the tenant of the entire building, had sublet a portion of a shop on the ground floor to M, who sub-let it further to one T in the year 1952 and it was admitted by the firm 'G' that 'M' was a lawful sub-tenant then in view of S. 5(15)(a), in respect of the further sub-tenancy M could be described as tenant and 'T' as his sub-tenant. And if that is so, there could be no reason why T's sub-tenancy should not be regarded as a valid sub-tenancy inasmuch as it was created before May 21, 1959 and he had entered into possession of the premises before that date and was continuing in possession on that date. - Tota Singh v/s M/s. Gold Field Leather Works, Bombay, reported in AIR 1985 SC 507 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11) (c), S.13(1)(1) - Sons of tenant building a house, whether tenant can be evicted on ground that she had acquired alternative accommodation? - Held. No.-

On sons of tenant, who is their mother, building a house the landlord cannot seek eviction of tenant on grounds having acquired alternate accommodation. From the scheme of the provision it is discernible that it is only when the tenant gets a right to reside in a house other than the demised premises on the happening of any one of the three alternatives mentioned therein, namely, either by building or by acquiring vacant possession of or by allotment of a house, that the landlord can seek recovery of possession of the demised premises from the tenant. That apart, even if the tenant first respondent and her sons, respondents 2 and 3, were let into possession of the suit premises about 30 years before the institution of the suit but the first respondent alone was the tenant and respondents 2 and 3 were there as members of her family, they were, therefore, not tenants of the suit premises. The definition of 'tenant' is too exhaustive to include any member of the family residing with him. Such members of his family who were residing with the tenant at the time of his death, or in their absence any heir of the deceased tenant, as may be decided in default of agreement by the Court, would become tenant only on his death. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are that son, respondents 2 and 3 built the house for which the first respondent tenant did not contribute any money; she did not shift her residence to the said house though she was visiting that house off and on. Inasmuch as the first respondent tenant did not built any house and respondents 2 and 3 are not the tenants, the first of the three alternatives, referred to in S. 13(1) is not available to the landlord to seek eviction of the first respondent tenant. - Anandi D. Jadhav v/s Nirmala Ramchandra Kore, AIR 2000 SC 1386, para Nos.5 & 8.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(11)(c) - Original tenant having two sons. On death of original tenant rent bills were issued in name of his elder son and on death of elder son rent bills were issued in name of his widow. No division of premises and rent was not being paid separately by younger son. Members of family of original tenant succeeded to tenancy together. Suit filed for eviction. Widow of elder son impleaded as tenant represented all tenants. Whether the decree passed in suit for eviction is binding on all members of family covered by tenancy?- Held. Yes.

Younger son claiming to be member of family residing with original tenant at time of his death cannot resist execution of decree. Moreso, when younger son was not residing in premises with family of elder son. Therefore, there was no necessity to implead appellant younger son as necessary party to suit for eviction. - Ashok Chintaman Juker v/s Kishore Pandurang Mantri, reported in AIR 2001 SC2251.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.5(18)(b), S.11(1)(c) - houses and rents - Fixation of standard rent - Principle of apportionment - Applicability - Apportionment - What is - How it has to be applied.

The principle of apportionment is not alien to the spirit and scheme of the Act. It is applicable to the fixation of standard rent.
Apportionment - or equal distribution of the burden of rent on every portion - is a rule of justice and good sense. If the standard rent of a whole was a specific amount, it stands to reason that the standard rent of a part or sub-division of that whole should not ordinarily exceed that amount. Therefore, if the court feels that for securing the ends of justice and giving effect to the provisions and policy of the Act, it is reasonably necessary and feasible to work out the standard rent by apportionment, it can legitimately do so. This principle, however, is applicable where on the basic date, that portion of which the standard rent is to be determined, had not been let separately as one unit, but the whole, of which it is a part, had been let on that date. Apportionment postulates that on account of its having been let on the basic date, the whole had acquired a standard rent which has to be allocated to smaller units subsequently carved out of it.

True, that unlike the English Rent Control Act of 1920 or the later English Acts, the (Bombay) Act does not expressly speak of apportionment. But the language of its relevant provisions is elastic enough to permit the fixation of standard rent on apportionment basis. Section 11(1) gives a discretion to the Court to fix such amount as standard rent as it "deems just", though in exercising this discretion the Court has to pay due regard to (i) the provisions of the Act and (ii) the circumstances of the case, and it is not to be rigidly and indiscriminately applied.

Thus, if after the material date, the landlord had made investments and improvements in the premises, it will be just and reasonable to take that factor also into account and to give him a fair return on such investments. Further, the Court must consider other relevant circumstances, such as "size, accessibility, aspect, and other physical advantages" enjoyed by the tenant of the premises. Where after the basic date, the premises completely change their identity, apportionment as a method of determining just standard rent, loses its efficacy and may be abandoned altogether. - Raja Bahadur Motilal Bombay Mills Ltd. v/s M/s. Govind Ram Brothers (P) Ltd., reported in AIR 1974 SC 1708.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.6 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Premises let for residence or business - Open land let for constructing building on it intended to be used for residence or business is letting for residence or for business.

Open land as it is, can be used for residence and can be 'premises let for residence' within the meaning of S. 6.
When open land is being leased not to be used for residence or business in its condition of open land but to be used for the purpose of residence or business after constructing buildings thereon, the letting of the open land can still be called to be letting for residence or business. - Mrs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy v/s Khemchand Gorumal, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1939 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.6 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Suit for possession of land used for agricultural purposes - Court exercising power under Act has no jurisdiction to entertain suit - Crucial date for determining whether land is used for agricultural purposes is date on which right conferred by Act is sought to be exercised.

The expression ''premises" in S. 5(8) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act 57 of 1947 does not include premises used for agricultural purposes. By S. 6 of that Act the provisions of Part II which relate to conditions in which orders in ejectment may be made against tenants and other related matters apply to premises let for education, business, trade or storage. It is plain that the Court exercising power under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947, has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of land used for agricultural purposes. Again in ascertaining whether the land demised is used for agricultural purposes, the crucial date is the date on which the right conferred by the Act is sought to be exercised. Ratio laid down in the case of Mst. Subhandra v. Narsaji Chenaji Marwadi, reported in AIR 1966 SC 806 is followed. - Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v/s Rajabhai Abdul Rehman, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1475 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.6(1) - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Construction - Lease of open land in suburban area of Bombay for constructing "buildings of every description howsoever" - Lease is not for any of the purposes set out in S. 6 (1).

Where a lease of open land situated in the Bombay Suburban District was made for constructing "buildings of every description howsoever" from time to time, the purpose for which the land was demised clearly was for constructing buildings of any description and not for constructing buildings for residence, education, business, trade or storage. The land thus demised, though 'premises' within the meaning of S. 5 (8), was not 'premises' within the meaning of S. 6 (1), and therefore, S. 18 (1) did not apply, ratio laid down in case of Mrs. Dossibai N. B Jeejeebhoy v/s Khemchand Gorumal, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1939, Disting.

Properly construed, S. 6(1) must mean that in order that Part II may apply the premises in question must be let out for the purposes of residence etc. The application of that part cannot have been intended to depend upon what a lessee may do or may not do.

The fact that the lease permitted the lessees to take construction loans from prospective tenants of the buildings to be constructed by the lessees does not affect the purpose for which the land was leased. - Osman Fakir Mohammed Divecha , Appellant v. Ali Akbar Javed Sadakya, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1893 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.6 - Premises, let for education - Protection from eviction by educational institutions - Premises let out on rent to club - Club activities not showing the premises were let for education - Benefit of Act cannot be claimed by club.

Where the premises were let out on rent to a club and the activities of the Club were more in the nature of cultural activities or recreational activities, inasmuch as they related fraternising among the members by playing indoor or outdoor games or otherwise, such activities cannot lead the conclusion that the premises were let for purposes of education and consequently the club was not entitled to the protection of the Act. - Haji Ismail Valid Mohmad v/s Sports Club in the name of Union Sports Club, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1855 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.11 - Default in payment of rent - Composite tenancy - Under contract, property tax along with monthly rent is required to be paid by tenant. Whether default in payment of rent at end of every succeeding month does not convert monthly tenancy into yearly one. - Held. No. - Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt v/s Rashiklal Manilal Shah, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2510.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.11(1)(e) - Standard rent - Application for fixation of - Subsistence of pre-existing dispute is sine qua non for making application.- Held. No.

There is no need for a pre-existing dispute to subsist before invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 11(1)(e) of the Act. Filing an application for determination of the standard rent itself is a dispute entitling the tenant to take the benefit of Section 12(3)(a). The dispute may arise in diverse forms.- Devkaran Nenshi Tanna v/s Manharlal Nenshi, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2747, para No.6.
Further held in para No.8 that :- Where the order fixing standard rent was passed on basis of compromise reached between the parties and it was clear from the order that the Court did not apply its mind to the factum whether the terms agreed by the parties are just and reasonable and whether it would be the standard rent consistent with the provision of the Act, the tenant would not be precluded from making an application for fixation of standard rent again when the notice was issued by the landlord demanding payment of the arrears of the standard rent. The Act is a welfare legislation and parties cannot contract out of the statute and the seal of approval of the Court does not super add its sanctity, nor receive its legality or validity or sanctity without due adjudication. The order should disclose the application of Court's mind to the facts and then to the determination of the standard rent on the basis of the terms, other evidence or records and the consent of the parties is consistent with the Act and should record its satisfaction.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.11(4) - Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (1 of 1986), S.22 - Eviction petition for non-payment of rent. Whether same is maintainable against sick company? Held. Yes.

- Order under S. 11(4) of Rent Act can also be passed and S. 22 of 1985 Act does not prevent such proceedings.- Gujarat Steel Tube Co. Ltd. , Petitioner v. Virchandbhai B. Shah, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3839, para Nos. 9 to 11.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.11(4) - houses and rents - Order to deposit arrears of rent - Order directing that in default of deposit defences were to be struck off – Validity.

On an application under S. 11 (4) by the landlord-plaintiff, a notice was issued to the defendants and an order was made requiring the defendants to deposit arrears of rent within a stipulated period and to continue to deposit monthly rent. It was further ordered that in default of the deposit the defences of the defendants were to be struck off and the suit should be placed for ex parte orders on the date fixed.
Held, the learned Judge of the High Court was wholly in error in holding that because of the form of the order (inasmuch as it used the words "defences to be struck off"). it was illegal and without jurisdiction. Moreover, the order itself did not order the defences to be struck off, it only fixed the date for striking out the defences. So, till the expiry of the period given by that order for the deposit of money, the question of striking out the defence did not arise nor was it in fact struck out. Further, it is Sec. 11(4) and not Section 12(3) (b) that would apply.

The phrase "defence struck off" or "defence struck out" is not unknown in the sphere of law. Indeed it finds a place in Order 11 , Rule 21, C. P. C. The phrase is more advantageous to the defendant, Even when a defence is struck off the defendant is entitled to appear, cross- examine the plaintiff's witnesses and submit that even on the basis of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff a decree cannot be passed against him, whereas if it is ordered in accordance with Section 11 (4) trial he shall not be entitled to appear in or defend the suit except with the leave of the Court he is placed at a greater disadvantage. The use of the phrase does not in any way affect the substance of the order. What the law contemplates is not adoption or use of a formula; it looks at the substance. - M/s. Paradise Industrial Corpn. , Appellants v. M/s. Kiln Plastics Products, reported in AIR 1976 SC 309 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(1) - Houses and Rents - Termination of tenancy - Suit for possession by landlord - Extension of part II of Act containing S. 12 to area pending suit - Applicability of S. 12(1) to suit - Date from which it applies - Right of landlord to get possession - "Landlord shall not be entitled to recovery of possession" - Court cannot give decree for possession.

Section 12(1) contained in Part II of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 enacts a rule of decision, and it says that a landlord is not entitled to possession if the tenant pays or shows his readiness and willingness to pay standard rent and to observe the other conditions of the tenancy. The word tenant is defined in the Act to include not only a tenant, whose tenancy subsists but also any person remaining, after the determination of the lease, in possession with or without the assent of the landlord. Thus, a statutory tenant is within the rule enacted by S. 12(1) and entitled to its protection.
Sub-section (1) of section 12 contained in Part II of the Act applies from the date on which Part II of the Act is extended to the particular area by a notification issued under S. 6. The sub-section says that a landlord shall not be entitled to the recovery of possession of any premises so long as the tenant pays or is ready and willing to pay the standard rent, etc. and observes and performs the other conditions of the tenancy. In other words, no decree can be passed granting possession to the landlord, if the tenant fulfills the conditions above mentioned. The point of time when the sub-section will operate is when the decree for recovery of possession will have to be passed. Thus, the language of the sub-section applies equally to suits pending when Part II comes into force and those to be filed subsequently. The contention that the operation of S. 12(1) is limited to suits filed after the Act comes into force in a particular area cannot be accepted.

On the termination of tenancy by efflux of time the landlord filed a suit on 25-4-1957 for possession of the premises. By a notification issued on 16-8-1958, Part II of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging, House Rates Control Act, 1947 was applied to the area wherein the premises were situated. The tenant, having lost in the trial Court and in the High Court on the ground that S. 12 of the Act was prospective and did not apply to pending cases, appealed to the S. C. - Shah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills and Ginning Factory v/s Subhash Chandra Yograj Sinha, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1596 (Five judges).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(1), S.13, S.14, S.15 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Person remaining in possession after determination of tenancy - Becomes statutory tenant - He can remain in possession but cannot enforce terms of original tenancy - Sub-lessee from a statutory tenant under the Act acquires no right of tenant.

A person remaining in occupation of the premises let to him after the determination of or expiry of the period of the tenancy is commonly, though in law not accurately, called a statutory tenant. Such a person is not a tenant at all, he has no estate or interest in the premises occupied by him. He has merely the protection ofthe statute in that he cannot be turned out so long as he pays, the standard rent and permitted increases, if any, and performs the other conditions of the tenancy. His right to remain in possession after the determination of the contractual tenancy is personal.. it is not capable of being transferred or assigned, and devolves on his death only in the manner provided by the statute. The right of a lessee from a landlord on the other hand is an estate or interest in the premises and in the absence of a contract to the contrary is transferable and the premises may be sublet by him. But with the determination of the lease, unless the tenant acquires the right of a tenant holding over, by acceptance of rent or by assent to his continuing in possession by the landlord, the terms and conditions of the lease are extinguished, and the rights of such a person remaining in possession are governed by the statute alone. Section 12(1) of the Act 57 of 1947 merely recognises his right to remain in possession so long as he pays or is ready and willing to pay the standard rent and permitted increases and performs the other conditions of the tenancy, but not the right to enforce the terms and conditions of the original tenancy after it is determined. Assuming that the tenant was entitled to sublet the premises under the terms of the lease he could not, relying upon S. 12(1), exercise the right to sublet granted under the lease after he became a statutory tenant. - Anand Nivas Private Ltd. v/s Anandji Kalyanji's Pedhi, reported in AIR 1965 SC 414 (FB).
Above referred ratio is distinguish in Damadilal and others, Appellants v. Parashram, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2229 (FB) and overruled in Om Wati Gaur v/s Jitendra Kumar, reported in AIR 2003 SC 229.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12, S.13 - Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.37 , R.2 (Bombay) - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - R. 8 of the Rules made under the Act is not ultra vires - Exercise of discretion under O. 37 R. 2 - Extent of Rule 8 of the Rules made under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, which provides that its under the Act may be instituted in accordance with the procedure laid down in O. 37 is not ultra vires and void. It is fallacious to contend that under provisions of the Act the landlord is not entitled to a decree as a matter of right; the Court has to consider the position of the tenant and has a discretion to pass or not to pass a decree and therefore to a suit governed by the Act the provisions of O. 37 R. 2 C. P. C. (Bombay), which makes it incumbent on the Court to pass a decree in circumstances coming within that sub-rule, are inapplicable. - Ramkarandas Radhavallabh v/s Bhagwandas Dwarkadas, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1144.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12, S.13, S.14 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Scope - Expression "is determined for any reason", meaning of - Interest of tenant when comes to an end.

It is not correct to say that as soon as a notice determining a contractual tenancy is given, the sub-tenant of the contractual tenant who was there from before has to be deemed A tenant under S. 14 from the date the notice expires.

The words "is determined for any reason" in the context of the Act mean that where the interest of a tenant comes to an end completely, the pre-existing sub-tenant may, if the conditions of S. 14 are satisfied, be deemed to be a tenant of the landlord.

The interest of a tenant who for purposes of S. 14 is a contractual tenant comes to an end completely only when he is not only no longer a contractual tenant but also when he has lost the right to remain in possession which S. 12 has given to him and is no longer even a statutory tenant. In other words S. 14 would come into play in favour of the sub-tenant only after the tenancy of the contractual tenants has been determined by notice and the contractual tenant has been ordered to be ejected under S. 28 on any of the grounds in S. 12 or S. 13. Till that event happens or till he gives up the tenancy himself the interest of a tenant who may be a contractual tenant, for purposes of S. 14, cannot be said to have determined i.e. come to an end completely in order to give rise to a tenancy between the pre-existing sub-tenant and the landlord.- Hiralal Vallabbram v/s Sheth Knsturbhai Lalbhai, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1853 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12- Whether the plea that arrears prior to transfer of disputed property could not be recovered as arrears of rent, the same being a 'debt due', is sustainable?- Held. No.

As per the proviso to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act the transferee is not entitled to arrears of rent due before the transfer unless there is a contract to the contrary and, therefore, the correct position of law is that a transferee is not entitled to recover the arrears as rent for the property on transfer unless the right to recover the arrears is also transferred. If right to recover the arrears is assigned, then the transferee/landlord can recover those arrears as rent and if not paid maintain a petition for eviction under the rent laws for those arrears as well. - Sheikh Noor v/s Sheikh G. S. Ibrahim, reported in AIR 2003 SC 4163, para Nos.10 & 18.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(1) - eviction - Suit for eviction on ground of breach of term of lease - Whether under relevant clause duty to carry out repairs was that of tenant or landlord – Interpretation.

Where the lessee covenants with lessor under the terms of lease that he will keep the premises in as good condition as the same were then in (reasonable wear and tear, and destruction or damage by fire, riots, insurrection, at of God or tempest excepted) and (except as aforesaid) deliver them up at the determination of the tenancy to the lessor, it cannot be said that the term merely amounts to a covenant for careful and reasonable use of the property on the part of the tenant and nothing more. The clause, imposes upon the tenant two obligations namely (a) to keep the property in repair from time to time during the term and (b) to restore it in repair, i. e. in the same good condition as he received it, at the end of the term.

A covenant of this type contained in a lease has always been construed by judicial decisions as casting a duty on the tenant to prevent permissive waste by carrying out such repairs as are necessary to keep and maintain the property in good condition and tenantable repair during the whole term and restore it to the lessor in the same condition at the end of the term.

Section 23 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 would not be attracted for under that provision the duty to keep the premises in good and tenantable repair is cast on the landlord in the absence of an agreement to the contrary by the tenant. Moreover, such a term in the lease would clearly be consistent with the provisions of the said Act. In these circumstances, if a finding of fact has been recorded by the lower Courts on evidence that the deterioration and damage caused to the suit property was not on account of natural or reasonable wear and tear but was due to the negligence in the up-keep and maintenance of the property on the part of the tenant the tenant must be held to have committed a breach of the term of the lease and the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the property from the tenant under the latter part of S. 12 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947. - Merwanji Nanabhoy Merchant v/s Union of India, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1309 (FB). Para Nos. 7 & 8.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Scope and object - Section - operates against landlord only after contractual tenancy is determined in accordance with S. 111 T. P. Act - Suit for recovery of possession under S. 12 - Nat maintainable unless tenancy is determined and notice under S. 12 (2) is served. - Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwanddin v/s Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad, reported in AIR 1963 SC 120 (FB).

Above referred ratio is impliedly overruled in the case of V. Dhanapal Chettiar v/s Yesodai Ammal, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1745 (Seven Judges).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(1) and S.12(3)(b) - houses and rents - eviction - tenancy - Houses and Rents - Suit by landlord against eviction of tenant - Tenant in arrears of rent - During pendency of suit, tenant not paying standard rent, nor was he ready or willing to pay - Instead, he claimed that he was not liable to pay any amount - Tenant, held could not claim protection from eviction. - Maganlal Chhotabhai Desai v/s Chandrakant Motilal, reported in AIR 1969 SC 37 (FB). Para Nos. 10 & 11.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(1), S.12(3)(b) and S.11(3) - houses and rents - eviction - Houses and Rents - Suit for eviction of tenant on ground of arrears for a period of more than six months - Tenant though raising dispute as to standard rent, making no application under S. 11 (3) - Cannot claim protection under S. 12 (1) by merely offering to pay or even paying all arrears due when court is about to pass decree - Tenant failing to pay or deposit in court regularly amount of standard rent due after first hearing, cannot get protection of S 12 (3) (b).

Where a suit for eviction is filed on the ground that the tenant was in arrears for a period of more than 6 months and the tenant although raising a dispute as to the standard rent or permitted increases recoverable under the Act, makes no application in terms of S. 11 (3) he cannot claim the protection of S. 12 (1) by merely offering to pay or even paying all arrears due from him when the court is about to pass a decree against him. To be within the protection of sub-s. (1) where he raises a dispute about the standard rent payable, he must make an application to the court under sub-s. (3) of S. 11 and thereafter pay or tender the amount rent and permitted increases, if any, specified in the order made by the Court. If he does not approach the court under S. 11 (3), it is not open to him thereafter to claim the protection of S. 12 (1).

Further, to be within the protection of S. 12 (3) (b) the tenant must not only pay all the arrears due from him on the first day of hearing of the suit, but he must thereafter continue to pay or tender in court regularly the rent and the permitted increases till the suit is finally decided. Therefore where after the first hearing of the suit the tenant failed to pay or deposit in court regularly the amount of standard rent which became due after that date and the rent remained unpaid when the suit was disposed of, there was default on the part of the tenant and he could not get the protection of S. 12 (3) (b). - Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal v/s Dalichand Virchand Shroff, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1109 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(1), S.50 - houses and rents - appeal - Ejectment suit under T.P. Act - Appeal therefrom pending when Act applied - Tenant cannot get benefit of S.12 irrespective of S.50 - Section 50 is special provision dealing with pending matters and it overrides general provisions of S.12.

The proviso to S. 50 read with the separate paragraph added thereto is an independent provision enacting a substantive law of its own by way of providing for special savings. It has not been added merely with a view to qualify or to create an exception to what is contained in the main provision of S.50. That being the true nature and scope of the proviso to S. 50, an appeal which arose out of a decree passed in a ejectment suit filed under the Transfer of Property Act and which was pending when Part II of the Act was made applicable to area in which the suit property was situate would be directly covered by the proviso read with the separate paragraph added thereto and would be liable to be decided and disposed of as if the Act had not been passed, that is to say, had to be disposed of in accordance with the law that was then applicable to it.

Either under the proviso as it originally stood or under the new separate paragraph enacted by way of an amendment the legislative intent was and is quite clear that only suits and original proceedings between a landlord and a tenant which were pending on the relevant date are required to be decided and disposed of by applying the provisions of the 1947 Act while execution proceedings and appeals arising out of decrees or orders passed before the coming into operation of the 1947 Act are denied the benefits of the provisions of the Act and have been directed to be decided and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed, that is to say, such execution proceedings and appeals would be continued to be governed by and shall be disposed of in accordance with the law that was then applicable to them. In other words, it is clear that the proviso was and has been enacted to provide for special savings which suggests that it has not been introduced merely with a view to qualify or create exceptions to what is contained in the substantive part of S.50. Secondly, the Legislature while framing the 1947 Act was enacting certain provisions for the benefit of tenants which conferred larger benefits on them than were in fact conferred by the earlier enactments which were repealed and therefore, the legislature thought it advisable that in regard to pending suits and original proceedings also in which the decrees and orders were not passed the provisions of the 1947 Act should be made applicable. It is with this intention that the proviso to S.50 has been enacted in the manner it has been done. - Motiram Ghelabhai v/s Jagan Nagar, reported in AIR 1985 SC 709.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(2) - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Demand notice is not invalid merely because it does not give breakup of the sum which was claimed as due per month.

Thus where the tenant is in doubt or requires clarification in respect of the sum which is claimed per month in the notice as due it was held that he should have called for information on those points from the landlord especially when he was sending replies through a lawyer to the notices issued by the landlord. The mere statement by the tenant in his reply to the notice that the claim was excessive was not enough. It was clear from his conduct that he was fully aware that the amount represented the standard rent with the permitted increases under the Act. Under such circumstances it cannot be held that there vas dispute between the landlord and tenant regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases so as to attract Section 12 (3) (b).

There is nothing in the Act necessitating landlord to give first a notice under Section 10 or Section 10-C for permitted increases and then a further notice under Section 12. It is enough that the landlord charges the tenant a higher rate and makes a demand at that rate. The date from which the demand would be effective would not be the date of intimation". Thus it could not be said that the question of tenant's being in default should have been considered only for the period subsequent to that date. - Gauri Shankar Chittarmal Gupta v/s Smt. Gangabai Tokersey, reported in AIR 1971 SC 659.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(2) - Termination of tenancy - Notice to tenant - Service of - Presumption as to - Notice to be sent as per provisions of S. 106 of T.P. Act - Tenant, a Company - Notice sent by registered post in the name of Company - Partner admitting that notice was sent on correct address - Service of notice is fully in accordance with S. 106. - Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd. v/s Vasant Baburao Ashtekar, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1097.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(2) - Termination of tenancy - Notice to tenant - Service of - Presumption as to - Notice to be sent as per provisions of S. 106 of T.P. Act - Tenant, a Company - Notice sent by registered post in the name of Company - Partner admitting that notice was sent on correct address - Service of notice is fully in accordance with S. 106. - Kulkarni Patterns Pvt. Ltd. v/s Vasant Baburao Ashtekar, reported in AIR 1992 SC 1097.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(2) , S.11 , S.10 - Whether it is open for tenant to raise dispute regarding the permitted increases during pendency of eviction petition – Held. No.Under S. 10 the tenant is bound to pay to the landlord the increase in rate, cess charges, tax, land assessment, ground rent or any other levy. The amount of increase, the tenant is bound to pay, has to be in the same proportion as the rent payable by him bears to the total amount of such rate, cess, charges, tax, land assessment, ground rent or any other levy. Section 11 gives the Court the power to fix the standard rent and/or the amount of the permitted increases. It has to be noted that under S. 11(1) the Court may fix the standard rent either upon an application made to it for that purpose or in any suit or proceeding. Thus the dispute regarding standard rent need not necessarily be by way of an application. However, under sub-sections (2) and (3) of S. 11 if there is any dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding the amount of permitted increases, it can be decided by the Court only on an application made by the tenant who has received a notice from his landlord. Thus in a suit for ejectment it would not be open for the tenant to raise a dispute regarding the permitted increases. If on receipt of a notice the tenant has either not paid the amount of the permitted increase and not raised a dispute by filing an application then, by virtue of Sections 12(2) and (3), the landlord would be entitled to a decree for eviction. - Laxman Jiwaba Baherwade v/s Bapurao Dodappa Tandale AIR 2002 SC 3266, para No.6.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3) , Cl.(a) and Cl.(b) - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Dispute about amount of standard rent - Final order of standard rent by Small Cause Court Tenant and landlord both questioning amount of standard rent by revision petitions - Dispute cannot be said to have come to end - Case will be governed not by Cl.(a) but by Cl. (b).

Eviction under Cl. (a) is made to depend upon several conditions. One such condition is that there should be no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent. Clause (b) comprehends all cases other than those falling within Cl. (a) and a case in which there is a dispute about the standard rent must obviously fall not in Cl. (a) but in Cl. (b).

Where, though the final order of standard rent is passed by the Court of Small Causes, neither the landlord nor the tenant accepts the determination, but each side questions the amount by filing revision petitions, particularly the landlord files one revision after another to get the amount increased, it would be strange for him to claim that there was no dispute subsisting. The case will be governed not by Cl. (a) but by Cl. (b). - Jashwantrai Malukchand v/s Anandilal Bapalal, reported in AIR 1965 SC 1419 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) - eviction - Houses and Rents - "May'' in expression "Court may pass a decree for eviction'' has a mandatory content - Court is bound to pass decree in ejectment if conditions of the clause are fulfilled.

The clause deals with cases not falling within cl. (3) (a) i.e. cases (i) in which rent is not payable by the month, (ii) in which there is a dispute regarding the standard rent and permitted increases, (iii) in which rent is not due for six months or more. In these cases the tenant may claim protection by paying of or tendering in Court on the first day of the hearing of the suit or such other date as the Court may fix the standard rent and permitted increases and continuing to pay or tender in Court regularly such rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also by paying costs of the suit as directed by the Court. What the tenant has to pay or tender in Court to comply with the conditions of cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) is standard rent and permitted increases, and the Court has under cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) merely the power to fix the date of payment or tender, and not the rate at which the standard rent is to be paid. Power to fix the standard rent of premises is exercisable under S. 11 (1) alone. To bring his claim within S. 12 (3) (b) the tenant must pay or tender the standard rent and permitted increases on or before the first day of hearing, or on or before such other date as the Court fixes, and also costs of the suit as may be directed by the Court. It may be noticed that the statute imposes upon the tenant obligation to pay or deposit the amount of costs if the Court so directs, and not otherwise. - Vora Abbasbhai Alimahomed v/s Jaji Gulamnabi Haji Safibhai, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1341 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) as amended by Act 61 of 1953, S.12(3)(a) - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Notice referred to in S.12(3)(a) refers to notice under S.13(2) - Suit for ejectment after amendment - Notice served on tenant-No payment of arrears of rent made -Decree for ejectment must be passed.

What S.12(3)(a) requires is that in cases where there is no dispute between the landlord and the tenant regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if the landlord is able to show that the tenant is in arrears for a period of six months or more and the said arrears continued in spite of the fact that a notice was served on him before the institution of the suit and no payment was made within a month thereafter, the landlord is entitle to get a decree for ejectment against the tenant. It is true that S. 12 (3) (a) refers to a notice, but in terms, it refers to a notice served by the landlord as required by Section 12 (2). Section 12 (2) never required the landlord to state to the tenant what the consequences would he if the tenant neglected to pay the arrears demanded from him/her by the notice. Therefore, if the notice served by the landlord on the tenant prior to the institution of the suit is in order and it is shown that the arrears have not been paid as required, then S. 12 (2) has been complied with, and it is on that footing that the case between the parties has to be tried under S. 12 (3) (a). If notice has been served as required by S. 12 (2) and the tenant is shown to have neglected to comply with the notice until the expiration of one month thereafter, S. 12 (2) satisfied and S. 12 (3) (a) comes into operation.

Provisions of S. 12 (3) (a) do not confer any vested right as such on the tenant. What S. 12 (3) (a) provided was that a decree shall not be passed in favour of the landlord in case the tenant pays or tenders in Court the standard rent at the hearing of the suit. This provision cannot prima facie be said to confer any right or vested right on the tenant. But even if the tenant had a vested right to pay the money in Court at the hearing of the suit, that consideration cannot alter the plain effect of the words used in S. 12 (3) (a). Where the suit was filed after the amended section came into force. clearly the amended provision applies to the suit and governs the decision of the dispute between the Parties. If that is so the plain meaning of S. 12 (3) (a) is that if a notice is served on the tenant and he has not made the payment as required within the time specified in S.12 (3) (a), the Court is bound to pass a decree for eviction against the tenant. Vasumatiben Gaurishankar Bhatt v/s Naviram Manchharam Vora, reported in AIR 1967 SC 405.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) (as it stood before amendment of 1963), (1) and (2) - tenancy - Houses and Rents - On conditions f sub-s. (3) (a) being satisfied, tenant by tendering arrears of rent after expiry of one month from service of notice under sub-s. (2) cannot claim any protection from eviction under sub-s. (1) and it is immaterial whether tender was made before or after institution of suit - In a case falling within sub-s. (3) (a), tenant must be dealt with under special provisions of sub-s. (3) (a) and he cannot claim any protection under general provisions of sub -s. (1).

.If the conditions of sub-s. (3) (a) are satisfied, the tenant cannot claim any protection from eviction under the Act. By tendering the arrears of rent after the expiry of one mouth from the service of the notice under sub-s. (2), he cannot claim the protection under sub-s. (1). It is immaterial whether the tender was made before or after the institution of the suit. In a case falling within sub-s. (3) (a), the tenant must be dealt with under the special provisions of sub-s. (3) (a) and he cannot claim any protection from eviction under the general provisions of sub-s. (1).

The landlord is vested with the right to recover possession of the premises if the rent is in arrears for a period of six months or more "the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-s. (2)", and the other conditions of sub-s. (3) are satisfied. This right cannot be defeated by showing that the tenant was ready and willing to pay the arrears of rent after the default, but before the institution of the suit. In effect, the appellant asks us to rewrite the sections and to substitute in it the following conditions: ''the tenant neglects to make payment thereof until the date of the institution of the suit.'' It is not possible to rewrite the section in the manner suggested by the appellant. - Mrs. Manorama S. Masurekar v/s Mrs. Dhanlaxmi G. Shah, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1078 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) and S.12(3)(b) and S.11(3) and S.11(4) - houses and rents - tenancy - Notice of termination of tenancy on ground of arrears of rent - Dispute as to standard rent has to be raised latest before expiry of one month after service of notice.

In order to avoid the operation of S 12. (3) (a) of the Act the dispute in regard to standard rent or permitted increases must be raised at the latest before the expiry of one month from the date of service of notice under Section 12 (2) of the Act and it is not enough to raise a dispute for the first time in written statement. AIR 1964 Guj 9 and (1966) 7 Guj LR 945, Approved. AIR 1964 Guj 9 held not overruled by 1964 SC 1341; C. R. A. No. 1353 of AIR 1970, D/- 22-12-19670 (Guj), Affirmed. (Paras 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)

The view that disputing within one month of the service of the notice terminating the tenancy is one mode of raising a dispute and there is another mode of raising the dispute at any stage of the suit nullifies the provisions contained in Section 12 and Explanation thereto and confers a right on the tenant where the legislation does not contemplate such a right Spl. civil Appln. No. 859 of 1967, D/- 31-3-1971 (Bom), Reversed.

The provisions in Section 11 (3) of the Act deal with orders which may be passed by the Court during the pendency of the application disputing the rent. Provisions in Section 11 (4) of the Act deal with orders which may be passed consequent upon dispute as to rent. It is only when an application disputing rent is made within the time contemplated by Explanation I to Sec. 12 of the Act that the provisions in subsections (3) and (4) of Section 11 are attracted.- Harbanslal Jagmohandas v/s Prabhudas Shivlal, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2005 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(b) - Eviction suit under Rent Control Act - Compromise decree - Decree not in violation of Act - Decree is valid.
Where an eviction suit under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, was disposed of on compromise between the parties, the tenant having either expressly or impliedly suffered a decree for eviction as being liable to be evicted in accordance with S. 12 (3) (b) of the Act. and there was abundant intrinsic material in the compromise itself to indicate that the decree passed upon its basis was not in violation of the Act but was in accordance with it, the compromise decree was not a nullity and could be executed on non-compliance. While recording the compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code, it is not necessary for the Court to say in express terms in the order that it was satisfied that the compromise was a lawful one. It will be presumed to have done so, unless the contrary is shown. - Suleman Noormohamed v/s Umarbhai Janubhai, reported in AIR 1978 SC 952. Para Nos. 6 to 8.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) - eviction - Eviction - Readiness and willingness to pay - Meaning of.

The readiness and the willingness of the tenant to pay could be found only if he had complied with the provisions of the Act. The Act does not cover the case of a person who is unable to pay owing to want of means but is otherwise "ready and willing". Such a case is no doubt a hard one, but, unfortunately, it does not enable Courts to make a special law for such hard cases which fall outside the statutory protection. - Mistry Premjibhai Vithaldas v/s Ganeshbhai Keshavji, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1707 (FB). Para No.14.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) and Explanation 3 (as inserted in 1975 in Maharastra) - Water charges paid by tenant - Right to adjust it against rent by tenant – this benefit was introduced in 1975, whether tenant can claim such benefit in pending eviction proceedings?- Held- Yes.

In 1975 Explanation 3 to S.12 was introduced giving right to the tenant to adjust water charges paid by him against rent. The plea of adjustment in the light of the provisions introduced by Act No. LI of 1975 was pressed before he Appellate Court by bringing to its notice the decrees passed in the summary suits filed by the Tenants' Association against the landlords. The plea appeal however was dismissed. In appeal before Supreme Court the tenant-appellants submitted that the benefit of the amended provisions of law which were brought in force and became available for the benefit of the tenants during the pendency of the cases should not have been denied to the tenants. The question that arises is whether Act No. LI of 1975 insofar as it amends S. 12 of Act No. 57 of 1947 can be said to be retrospective in operation. - Ramji Purshottam v/s Laxmanbhai D. Kurlawala, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4010.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3) (as substituted vide Maharahstra Act 18 of 1987) - Whether the first date of hearing can be stretched beyond date before issues are framed in suit – Held. No.

Words 'such other date as Court may fix' occurring in S. 12(3), do not include date fixed by appellate Court in terms of S. 107 of Civil P.C. and if Tenant fails to deposit arrears of rent before trial Court on the first date of hearing, tenant Cannot take advantage of S. 12(3) at appellate stage. - Vasant Ganesh Damle v/s Shrikant Trimbak Datar, reported in AIR 2002 SC 1237.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) -”Arrears of rent' - Release of all rights, title and interest in property in dispute in favour of co-owner. Assignment of rent mentioned in deed. Assignee not entitled to rent before assignment. Rent due before assignment could not constitute arrears of rent and it was merely actionable claim. - N. M. Engineer v/s Narendra Singh Virdi, reported in AIR 1995 SC 448.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) , S.12(3)(b) , S.11(3) -Eviction - Tenant disputing increase in standard rent and permitted increases claimed in notice but paid all arrears in Court within one month from date of notice and, thereafter, continued to deposit rent regularly. Whether in such situation, an application under S. 11(3) for fixation of standard rent need to be filed within one month from receipt of notice.?- Held. No.

The Act prescribes issuance of a notice determining the tenancy for failure on the part of the tenant to pay the arrears of standard rent or permitted increases for six months and more and for delivery of possession. In case the tenant disputes the standard rent or permitted increases claimed in the notice, the tenant is enjoined under S. 12(3)(a) to dispute the correctness thereof and to plead prevailing one by issuing reply notice within one month from the date of its receipt. In that situation it is manifest that the landlord elected his statutory right to determine the tenancy on account of arrears for a period of six months or more. The landlord put the tenant on notice of his negligence and to make payment thereof within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice and on disputation is enjoined to seek remedy under S. 11(3) for determination of the standard rent or permitted increases. If he fails to dispute and omits to pay the arrears within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice, he became liable to be evicted under S. 12 (3)(a) of the Act. Admittedly the statute does not prescribe any period of limitation u/S. 11(3) to lay the application for fixation of standard rent or permitted increases. Therefore the application under S. 11(3) for fixation of standard rent within one month from the date of the receipt of the notice. But expeditious action is called for to prove the bona fides of the tenants disputing the right of the landlord in the claim of standard rent or permitted increases. Therefore, where the tenant has paid all the arrears on the first day of the appearance has been continuing to deposit the rent regularly, he did not commit any default to pay the rent and he is entitled to benefit of S. 12(3)(b) and merely because the tenant did not file application under S. 11(3) for fixation of standard rent within one month from receipt of notice, he cannot be held liable to be evicted. - Ibrahim Abdulrahim Shaikh v/s Krishnamorari Sripatlal Agarwal, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1609, para Nos. 3 & 4.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) - Suit for eviction - Claim for permitted increases. Rent would not cease to be payable every month on ground that permitted increases were payable on year to year basis by landlord to authorities especially when claim for permitted increases was for period of about 3 years. - Chase Bright Steel Limited v/s Shantaram Shankar Saswant, reported in AIR 1994 SC 2114.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12 (3) (a) and 13 (1) (g) - Where a suit for eviction was filed under Bombay Rent Act on the ground contained in Ss. 12(3)(a) and 13(1)(g), i.e. on the ground of non-payment of rent and on the ground of bona fide personal requirement and in the terms of compromise on which decree for eviction was passed there was an implied admission by the tenant of the grounds contained in S. 12(3)(a) as well as S. 13(1)(g), the decree passed can be said to be a nullity and not executable. - Held. No.

Further held that in a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement the landlord is not supposed to have pleaded his own comparative hardship in the plaint itself. S. 13(2) comes into play at the stage when the Court is satisfied that the ground contained in Cl. (g) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 13 has been made out. It is at that stage that the Court has to examine the question of comparative hardship. It is thus not necessary to plead in the plaint itself. Often the parties at the stage of recording of evidence of bona fide personal requirement also lead evidence as to the comparative hardship of the landlord or the tenant. But such averments are not required to be pleaded in the plaint itself to give cause of action to the landlord to enable him to file a suit for eviction of the tenant on the ground of his bona fide personal requirement.- Hiralal Moolchand Doshi , Appellant v. Barot Raman Lal Ranchhoddas, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1449.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(b) - eviction - Suit for eviction - Arrears of rent - Protection from eviction on deposit arrears of rent "regularly" in Court - Expression "regularly" does not mean with exact or mathematical punctuality.

To take advantage of protection from eviction under S. 12(3) (b) of the Act it cannot be said that exact or mathematical punctuality was required in the deposit of rent by a tenant. In the present case, the tenant had been depositing the rents in Court for two or three months at a time. There were a few defaults committed by the tenant in the sense that in respect of the first month to which the deposit relates, there was some delay amounting to from two or three days upto a maximum of 23 days. But, on the other hand, the rent for most of the months had been deposited in advance. In these circumstances, the rent could be said to have been deposited by the tenant with reasonable punctuality. Hence the tenant can be regarded as having deposited the rent "regulary" as contemplated in cl. (b) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 12 of the Act so as to claim protection from eviction. - Mohan Laxman Hede , Appellant v. Noormohamed Adam Shaikh, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1111 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3) - Eviction - Arrears of rent - Tenant neglecting to make payment until the expiration of period of one months notice under S. 12(2) - Court can pass the decree for eviction.

Sub-section (3)(a) of Section 12 categorically provided that where the rent was payable by the month and there was no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases, if such rent or increases were in arrears for a period of six months or more and the tenant neglected to make payment thereof until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2), the Court shall pass a decree for eviction in any such suit for recovery of possession. In the instant case the rent was payable month by month. There was no dispute regarding the amount of standard rent or permitted increases. Such rent or increases were in arrears for a period of six months or more. The tenant has neglected to make payment until the expiration of the period of one month after notice referred to in sub-section (2). The Court was therefore bound to pass a decree for eviction. Jaywant S. Kulkarni v/s Minochar Dosabhai Shroff, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1817 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(a) - Arrears of rent - Transfer of lease hold premises - Rent sent to persons named in letter by landlord to tenant directing him to pay rent to those persons. Refusal of 'rent' by them. Notice by advocate on behalf of purchaser landlord after two years of transfer to tenant demanding arrears of rent. Notice stating that rent be sent to purchaser landlord meaning thereby that advocate was not authorised to receive rent - Tenant however, instead of taking risk as in previous case sending rent to advocate. Whether in such circumstances same can be termed as legal tender of amount of arrears of rent. -held. Yes.- Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v/s Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2437.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(b) - houses and rents - Payment of rent and permitted increases 'regularly' during pendency of suit or appeal - Term 'regularly' is mandatory and not directory - In case of monthly tenancy Court has no discretion to treat payments made at irregular intervals as sufficient compliance with Cl.(b).

The above enunciation, clarifies beyond doubt that the provisions of clause (b) of Section 12 (3) are mandatory, and must be strictly complied with by the tenant during the pendency of the suit or appeal if the landlord's claim for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent is to be defeated. The word "regularly" in clause (b) of Section 12 (3) has a significance of its own. It enjoins a payment or tender characterised by reasonable punctuality, that is to say, one made at regular times or intervals. The regularity contemplated may not be a punctuality, of clock like precision and exactitude, but it must reasonably conform with substantial proximity to the sequence of times or intervals at which the rent falls due. Thus, where the rent is payable by the month, the tenant must, if he wants to avail of the benefit of the latter part of cl. (b), tender or pay it every month as it falls due, or at his discretion in advance. If he persistently defaults during the pendency of the suit or appeal in paying the rent, such as where he pays it at irregular intervals of 2 or 3 or 4 months - as is the case before us - the Court has no discretion to treat what were manifestly irregular payments, as substantial compliance with the mandate of this clause irrespective of the fact that by the time the judgment was pronounced all the arrears had been cleared by the tenant. - Mranalini B. Shah v/s Bapalal Mohanlal Shah, reported in AIR 1980 SC 954.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(b) -Eviction - Validity - Part of land demised for keeping or grazing cattle. Rent note containing the term, stating that tenant has measured land and he will not use land lying beyond said limits and he will put up wire fencing demarcating demised land. Term constitutes condition of tenancy and not personal obligation of tenant. It is an obligation on him cast in his capacity as tenant. Tenant committing breach of term and encroaching upon adjacent land of landlord – Whether he is liable for eviction.- Held. Yes. - Patel Chandulal Trikamlal v/s Rabri Prabhat Harji, reported in AIR 1996 Sc 532.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.12(3)(b) - houses and rents - Tenant not observing conditions of the section - Not entitled to its protection.

When the tenant does not fulfill the conditions as required under S. 12 (3) (b), he cannot claim protection under Section 12 (3) (b). The conditions specified in S. 12 (3) (b) will have to be strictly observed by the tenant if he wants to avail himself of the benefits provided under the section. The persistent default of the tenant on various occasions and his clear statement that he was not in a position to pay the arrears, would exclude any relief under S. 12 (3) (b). AIR 1978 SC 955, Rel. on. - Jamnadas Dharamdas v/s Dr. J. Joseph Farrei, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1605 (FB), para Nos. 11 & 12.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13 - Is it open to a Court to take into consideration any subsequent event while dealing with the matters relating to relationship of landlord and tenant governed by law?- Held. Yes.

It is open to a Court to take into consideration any subsequent event while dealing with the matters relating to relationship of landlord and tenant governed by law enacted in that regard for passing the appropriate orders. Hence, when the tenant took possession of accommodation acquired by him during the pendency of the suit filed by the landlord and therefore in law the tenant had acquired vacant accommodation, the tenant made himself liable to be evicted from the premises. - Vishwasrao Dadasaheb v/s Shankarrao D. Kalyankar,reported in AIR 2000 SC 3613, para No.2.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13- Companies Act (1 of 1956), S.468, S.446(3)- Liquidation proceedings-"Tenancy rights" of liquidated Company-May not be assets for liquidation proceedings - Words and phrases -"Tenancy rights" of liquidated Company may not be termed as assets for liquidation proceedings but in tenanted premises of liquidated Company, Liquidator is entitled to plead that he requires the premises for storing books and taking steps for revival of liquidated Company and they can be factors relevant for liquidator's continued possession. - Smt. Nirmala R. Bafna/Kershi Shivax Cambatta v/s Khandesh Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 1993 SC 1380 (FB), para Nos. 18 to 23.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13 - eviction - Death of tenant - Widow and two sons left behind - Suit filed by landlord for eviction on ground of bona fide requirement and default in payment of rent - One of sons (respondent) of tenant not impleaded - Ex parte decree passed in favour of landlord - Ex parte decree obtained against mother and brother is not binding against respondent - Decree cannot be kept alive against two other tenants - Possession could not be given to respondent exclusively - Ex parte decree set aside with direction to implead respondent as party to suit. - Textile Association (India) Bombay Unit v/s Balmohan Gopal Kurup, reported in AIR 1990 SC 2053 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13 - Eviction suit - Bona fide requirement of building for personal occupation. Petition came up for hearing after lapse of 31 years from date of filing of suit. Landlord 54 years of age then by now 87 years. Four unmarried daughters already been married. Need of landlord to set up business cannot be said to be subsisting. His son who was 24 years of age going to retire after four and half years. On his filing petition and satisfying need for setting up his business, order of eviction is can be passed?-Held. Yes. - Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt v/s Rashiklal Manilal Shah, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2510.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) (as amended in 1973), S.13, S.15 - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) (as amended in 1973), S.13, S.15.
Where the liquidator of the Company, on its being wound up, took the possession of the premises of the company and subsequently by the order of the High Court entered into a caretaker's agreement with 'X', and gave possession of the premises to him on compensation and on terms and conditions set out in the agreement, though the business of the Company came to a standstill, the moment it was ordered to be wound up, and it was not the Liquidator's case that he was carrying on business of the Company with the permission of the Court under sec. 457, the High Court could not authorise the liquidator to enter into such an agreement and therefore the order of the High Court was liable to be set aside as it was wholly impermissible under the Rent Act. The possession of the premises ordered to be handed over to the landlord. - Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna v/s Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay, reported in AIR 1983 SC 1061.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13, S.14 - Sub-tenant inducted into premises before 1973 and, therefore, he became direct tenant from date of determination of tenancy of main tenant. Sub-tenant being in lawful possession, whether such Sub-tenant is liable to eviction for default in payment of rent by main tenant. - Held. No.

When Section 14 of the Act uses the expression "subject to the provisions of this Act" sub-tenant be deemed to become tenant on same terms and conditions as he would have held from tenant if tenancy had continued, it does not merely mean that sub-tenant would become subject to the provisions of the Act after he becomes direct tenant under the landlord on the determination of the tenancy of the main tenant. What this expression means is that a sub-tenant cannot become a direct tenant in all circumstances, i.e., on all grounds of eviction against the main tenant but that would depend upon the nature of the ground of eviction as may be advanced and proved by the landlord. - Anandram Chandanmal Munot v/s Bansilal Chunilal Kabra, reported in AIR 2002 SC 288, para No.21.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates control Act (57 of 1947), S.13 - Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.108(h)- houses and rents - lease - Houses and Rents - Lease of land - Construction of building by lessee - Rights of lesser.

On May 23, 1927, the appellants as trustees of the Mankeshwar Temple, executed a registered lease, in favour of the respondent, whereby they demised a parcel of land. The lease was for twenty-one years. The rent reserved was Rs. 50 per month. Under the terms of the lease the lessee had to construct within six months from the date of the lease a double storied building consisting of shops on the ground floor and residential rooms on the upper floor. The construction had to be to the satisfaction of the lessors engineers. The building had to be insured in the joint names of the lessors and the lessee with an insurance firm approved by the lessors. On the termination of the lease either at the end of twenty-one years or earlier, the lessee was to surrender and yield up the demised premises including the building with its fixtures and appurtenances to the lessors without any compensation for the same. On May 14, 1948, shortly before the lease was to expire, the appellants gave notice to the respondent to deliver possession of the demised premises and the building on the expiry of the lease, that is to say, on May 22, 1948.

Held that the period of the lease having expired and the respondent having been given notice to quit, he was bound to vacate the demised premises unless he was protected by the provisions of Act 57 of 1947. Land used for non-agricultural purposes is "premises" under the Act. Although the period of the lease had expired the respondent continued to remain in possession without the assent of the lessors. Under the Act he would, therefore, be tenant of the land within the meaning of that expression as defined in the Act. So far as the land demised by the lease was concerned the respondent could not be evicted so long as he complied with the provisions of the Act and the lessors, as landlords, were unable to resort to any of the provisions of S. 13 of the Act to evict the respondent from the land,. Although under S. 108 of the T. P. Act the lessee had the right to remove the building by the contract he had agreed to hand over the same to the lessors without the right to receive compensation at the end of the lease, the matter being entirely one of contract between the parties. Such a contract, however, did not transfer the ownership in the building to the lessors while the lease subsisted. The provisions of the Act do not provide for the continuation of a lease beyond the specified period stated therein. All that the Act does is to give to the person who continues to remain in possession of the land, although the period of the lease had come to an end. The status of a statutory tenant. The appellants were entitled to a declaration that the building constructed on the land demised under the lease, belonged to the Mankeshwar Temple Trust and the said trust was entitled to recover all the rents and profits from the same and the respondent had no right, titled and interest therein since the expiration of the said lease. The respondent was directed to tender an account of the rents received by him from the tenants of the building from 23-5-48. - Dr. K. A. Dhairyawan v/s J. R. Thakur, reported in AIR 1958 SC 789 (FB).
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1) - If the other members of the family no longer required the premises, the requirement of the landlady is said to be survived. - Held. No.

Landlady has every right to occupy her own premises and she could not be told that she should share accommodation with her brother in another apartment and one cannot compel the owner of the premises which exclusively belongs to her to share accommodation with a co-owner of hers in another premises.- Julieta Antonieta Tarcato v/s Suleiman Ismail, reported in AIR 2007 SC (supp) 536.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)- Recovery of possession - Suit by landlord - Limitation Act is applicable to such suit. Ss. 12 and 13 co-exist and must be harmonised to effect purpose and intent of legislature for purpose of eviction of tenant - Suit for recovery of possession by landlord - Limitation - Art. 67 and not Art. 113 of Limitation Act 1963 would be applicable.

It cannot be said that for any suit by a landlord against a tenant for recovery of possession under the Rent Act, the Limitation Act is inherently inapplicable. Recovery of possession is by a suit and there is no section in the scheme of the Limitation Act to indicate that Limitation Act was inherently inapplicable. In the scheme of the Rent Act or in the various contingencies contemplated under the Rent Act, there is nothing to indicate or warrant that there would be no limitation of any period. Art. 67, Limitation Act, indicates that time begins to run only when the tenancy is determined. It comprehends suit by a landlord and deals with right to recover possession from the tenant. Therefore, it deals with landlord and tenant. Thus it cannot be said that limitation was inapplicable to ejectment. Section 12(1) clothed a tenant with the cloak of statutory protection against eviction so long as he performs the conditions of tenancy. S. 13 provides that notwithstanding that protection the landlord can sue for eviction provided he established any one of the circumstances set out in that section. It was impossible to say that it was only when circumstances set out in S. 13 arose that a landlord could evict and that eviction on the ground of the failure to perform the conditions of tenancy would not deprive the tenant of the protection under S. 12(1), Rent Act. Such a reading would be contrary to the whole scheme underlying the objects of the two sections. Such legal position is not against the trend of the principle behind rent legislation. It affords protection to the tenant inasmuch as it says that it was only on the fulfillment of the condition stipulated in the two sections and on satisfaction of the contingencies mentioned in S. 12 which would deprive the tenant of the protection that the tenant can be evicted. If that is so then on the strict grammatical meaning, Art. 67, Limitation Act, 1963, would be applicable to the suit by the landlord against the tenant to recover possession. In the instant case the suit was filed because the tenancy was determined by the combined effect of the operation of Ss. 12 and 13, Rent Act. Thus at the most it would be within Art. 66, Limitation Act, if it was held that forfeiture has been incurred by the tenant in view of the breach of the conditions mentioned in S. 13, Rent Act, and on lifting of the embargo against eviction of tenant in terms of S. 12 of the Act. That being so, either of the two, Art. 66 or Art. 67 would be applicable to the facts of the case; there is no scope of the application of Art. 113, Limitation Act, in any view of the matter. Ss. 12 and 13, Bombay Rent Act, co-exist and must be harmonised to effect the purpose and intent of the legislature for the purpose of eviction of the tenant. In that view of the matter Art. 113, Limitation Art, has no scope of application. Only one article for recovery of possession is reserved under the Limitation Act by a landlord from a tenant, that is Art. 139 of the Limitation Act, 1908. This article is the exact predecessor of Art. 67. - Smt. Shakuntala S. Tiwari v/s Hem Chand M. Singhania, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1823.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(a) - Eviction - Change of user - Premises consisting of three rooms, two rooms on front side were let out for commercial purpose and third room at back side was let out for residential purpose. Tenant however, using the two front rooms for residence and third back side room for business. Does it amount to change of user.- Held. No.

One of the three grounds on which the Courts below recorded the finding in favour of the appellants is change of user of the suit premises by the respondents. It has already been noticed above that the front rooms, which were let out for business purposes, were being used for residential purposes and the rear room which was let out for residential purposes, was being used partly for storing spare parts of the motor-cycle. This finding was relying on the judgment of this Court in Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain, (1989) 3 SCC 441 : (AIR 1989 SC 1841) wherein it was held that the premises let out for running a cycle and rickshaw repair shop was also being used for selling television sets. The Court held that it did not amount to change of user. The view taken by the High Court is supported by the decisions of this Court in Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal, (1979) 2 SCC 274 : (AIR 1979 SC 1601) and Kisan Dayanu Mano v. Vithal Vishnu Mohandalo, 1990 (Supp) SCC 654. - Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri v/s Bhaskar Balwant Aher, reported in AIR 2000 SC 931, para No.6.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) , S.13(1)(a) - Eviction - Bona fide requirement - Landlady requiring premises to set up one of her sons in (Kirana) grossery business which was their family business. Son was unemployed at time of filing suit but subsequently started work of construction contractor. Whether taking up contractor's business in meanwhile, militate against his intention to start family business- Held No.

He cannot be expected to remain unemployed till suit is finally decided and his taking up contractor's business in meanwhile, does not militate against his intention to start family business and such requirement also cannot be termed as mala fide on ground that son in question could have joined his mother or brother who were already carrying on grossery business. - Smt. Ramkubai v/s Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3089, para Nos.11, 15 &16.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(a) - eviction - Eviction for change of user - Uses of premises by lessee contemplated by agreement for a specific business - Use of land for purpose (business) in addition to the one contemplated under the lease agreement - Plea of lessee that lease being for carrying on business any business could be carried on by him - Negatived by High Court - Supreme Court declined to interfere.- Dashrath Baburao Sangale and others, Appellants v. Kashinath Bhaskar Data, reported in AIR SC 1993 SC 2646.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(i)(a) - Eviction suit - Bona fide requirement - Landlord coming into possession of alternative accommodation during pendency of appeal - Same has to be considered in deciding bona fide requirement of landlord - Subsequent events can be considered by Court. - Gulabbai v/s Nalin Narsi Vohra, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1760.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e), S.15(2)- Any sub-letting, assignment, transfer of interest in any other manner or licensing made by the tenant, after February 1, 1973 without there being any sanctioning clause in the contractor or without the express consent of the landlord would constitute a ground for eviction under Section 13(1) (e) of the Act? -Held- No.

Where the defendant tenant made a sub-lease and parted with the possession of the suit land in favour of the second defendant and the sub-tenant came in possession of the suit land before February 1, 1973 and continued to be in its possession on that date, such subletting by defendant in favour of second defendant would fall within protective ambit of S.15(2) of Bombay Rent Act and therefore sub-tenant would not be liable to be evicted.- Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v/s M/s. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1793, para Nos.19, 20 & 23.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), (as applied to Gujarat), S.13(1)(e) - tenancy - words and phrases - "Has sublet" - Interpretation - To deprive tenant of protection under the Act, sub-letting need not subsist at the date of the suit. - Gajanan Dattatraya v/s Sherbanu Hosang Patel, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2156 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), (as applied to Gujarat), S.13(1)(e) - tenancy - words and phrases - "Has sublet" - Interpretation - To deprive tenant of protection under the Act, sub-letting need not subsist at the date of the suit.

The provisions of the Act indicate that a tenant is disentitled to any protection under the Act if he is within the mischief of the provisions of Section 13(1)(e), namely, that he has sublet. The language is that if the tenant has sublet, the protection ceases. It cannot be contended that the sub-letting must continue at the date of the suit for passing the decree for eviction. The tenant's liability to eviction arises once the fact of unlawful subletting is proved at the date of the notice. (1969) 10 Guj LR 837 Approved and followed in Carona Ltd. v. M/s. Parvathy Swami-nathan, reported in AIR 2008 SC 108. - Gajanan Dattatraya v/s Sherbanu Hosang Patel, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2156 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e) - houses and rents - Subletting - Business of partnership firm carried on in premises of which one partner was tenant - There is no subletting.

It is well settled that if there was a partnership firm of which tenant of the premises in which the business of the firm was carried on was a partner, the fact of carrying on of the partnership in the premises would not amount to subletting leading to the forfeiture of the tenancy. Section 6 reiterates that in determining whether a group of persons is or is not a firm, or whether a person is or is not a partner in a firm, regard shall be had to the relation between the parties, as shown by all relevant facts taken together. The following important elements must be there in order to establish partnership : (1) there must be an agreement entered into by all parties concerned, (2) the agreement must be to share profits of business, and (3) the business must be carried on by all or any of the persons concerned acting for all. Where a partner brought in as his asset, tenancy in the premises in which the partnership business was to be carried on the fact that the partner in question was to share the profits only and was to get a fixed percentage of the profits or the further fact that the said partner was not to operate the bank accounts, there being nothing intrinsically wrong in law from constituting a partnership in the manner it was done it could not be said that no genuine partnership had come into existence. - Girdharbhai v/s Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri , reported in AIR 1987 SC 1782.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e) - Eviction - Sub-letting - Original tenant of premises is no more and Landlord is doubtful and unable to spell out heirs of deceased tenant. Daughter of tenant moved an application for joining her as party on the ground that she is the daughter of tenant and leaving it to Court to decide who is real heir of original tenant. Rejection of suit on ground that since landlord has not recognized daughter of original tenant as his tenant there could not be sub-letting, whether such order is sustainable?- Held. No.
Virendra Kashinath Ravat v/s Vinayak N. Joshi, reported in AIR 1999 SC 162.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e) - Cousin of tenant's husband not residing in premises with tenant, from commencement of tenancy and having separate business of himself, whether, he Can be held to be member of tenant's 'family'? - Held. No.

The question as to whether a person is a member of the family of the tenant must be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the parents, spouse, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, if any other relative claims to be a member of the tenant's family, some more evidence is necessary to prove that they have always resided together as members of one family over a period of time. The mere fact that a relative has chosen to reside with the tenant for the sake of convenience, will not make him a member of the family of the tenant in the context of rent control legislation. - Kailasbhai Shukaram Tiwari v. Jostna Laxmidas Pujara, reported in AIR 2006 SC 741.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e), S.15(2) - If there was no material change in status of sub-tenant in terms and conditions on which it was in possession of suit land on February 1, 1973 or in inter se relationship between tenant and sub-tenant, whether in such situation, execution of sub-lease subsequent to February 1, 1973 by tenant in favour of sub-tenant would militate against protection offered by S. 15 (2) of Act.

Held – No. Execution of such sub-lease would not constitute a ground for eviction of tenant in terms of S. 13(1)(e) of Act.- Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v/s M/s. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1793, para No.28.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e) and S.15 - houses and rents - maxims - non-obstante clause - contract - special leave appeal - plea - estoppal - waiver - Houses and Rents - Non-obstante clause in S. 15 - Sub-letting by tenant in pursuance of agreement with landlord - Tenant incurs liability to ejectment - Agreement becomes illegal - Public policy - Plea of waiver by landlord - If available to tenant - Plea of pari delicto.

This section prohibits sub-letting and makes it unlawful for a tenant to assign or to transfer his interest in the premises let to him. The non-obstante clause would mean that even if any other law allowed sub-letting, e.g., S. 108 of the Transfer of Property Act the sub-letting would, because of S. 15, be unlawful. This would apply to contracts also as all contracts would fall under the provisions of the law relating to contracts i.e. Contract Act. An agreement contrary to the provisions of that section (S. 15) would be unenforceable as being in contravention of the express provision of the Act which prohibits it. It is not permissible to any person to rely upon a contract the making of which the law prohibits. (S. 23 of the Contract Act.) - Waman Shriniwas Kini v/s Ratilal Bhagwandas and Com., reported in AIR 1959 SC 689 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e) - Tenant was initially running a proprietary concern but later on he registered private Company to run his business. Whether merely by holding a large number of shares in such Company would be sufficient to prove that such person is actually controlling and managing the business himself. - Held- No.
It is held that - the theory of lifting the corporate veil has been accepted in certain circumstances which have already been referred by this Court in a series of decisions. However, so far as this case is concerned, as per the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court as well as by the High Court that the appellant-defendant has not been able to successfully prove that he is controlling the company, it was held by the appellate court that merely by holding a large number of shares is not sufficient but something more is required to prove that he is actually controlling and managing the business himself. - Santosh Ajit Sachdeva v/s Anoopi Shahani, reported in AIR 2007 SC 3231, para No.8.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e) - Eviction - Sub-letting - Suit shop let out to tenant. Tenant carrying on business in partnership with his sons. Retirement of tenant-father from firm and it became proprietor firm leaving only son of tenant in suit shop. Whether, it amounts to subletting? - Held. Yes.

The premises in question is a shop. It was let out to the tenant. The tenant entered into a partnership with his four sons for carrying on the business of sale of medicines in the suit premises and a partnership deed was executed between them. The partnership was at will and under Cl. (7) thereof, it was provided that "only the tenant-father will be the exclusive proprietor and owner of the goodwill of the business, place of the business and all other rights of the business". Subsequently a new partnership deed between two sons of the tenant was executed and in terms thereof the tenant-father and his two other sons retired from the business of the partnership. Various clauses of the new partnership deed clearly showed that after the tenant-father retired from the earlier partnership he was to have no concern, right, title or interest in the new partnership which was now carrying on business in the suit premises, though in the same name. The rent was also paid by one of the two partners of the new partnership. The landlord filed a suit for eviction on ground of sub-letting. Held, under the new partnership it was the sons of the tenant-father who were in complete control of the suit premises and were exercising exclusive possession for the same to the exclusion of the tenant-father. That tenant-father would occasionally visit the shop premises does not advance the case that he (tenant-father) could exercise his rights over the shop premises. He had handed over the shop premises to his sons who were exercising their independent right over the same and conducting their business thereat. The tenant-father had completely divested himself of the suit premises as well as the business. The landlord was therefore entitled to a decree of eviction. - Mohammedkasam Haji Gulambhai v/s Bakerali Fatehali, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1324, para Nos. 13 & 14.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(e), S.15(2)- Any sub-letting, assignment, transfer of interest in any other manner or licensing made by the tenant, after February 1, 1973 without there being any sanctioning clause in the contractor or without the express consent of the landlord would constitute a ground for eviction under Section 13(1) (e) of the Act? -Held- No.

Where the defendant tenant made a sub-lease and parted with the possession of the suit land in favour of the second defendant and the sub-tenant came in possession of the suit land before February 1, 1973 and continued to be in its possession on that date, such subletting by defendant in favour of second defendant would fall within protective ambit of S.15(2) of Bombay Rent Act and therefore sub-tenant would not be liable to be evicted.- Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v/s M/s. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1793, para Nos.19, 20 & 23.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) - Eviction - Reasonable and bona fide requirement. It means some thing more than desire but not dire necessary.- Raghunath G. Panhale v/s M/s. Chaganlal Sundarji and Com., reported in AIR 1999 SC 3864, para Nos.4 & 6.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g), S.13(2) - Even if the ground for eviction is made out under Section 13 (1)(g), then also decree of eviction can be refused, if finding of comparative hardship goes against landlord?- Held- Yes.

Eviction can be refused if finding of comparative hardship goes against landlord and further held that burden to prove bona fide requirement is of landlord and burden to prove comparative hardship is on tenant and it is also held that for proof of bona fide requirement, degree of necessity is not relevant but for comparative hardship, degree of necessity assumes significance. - Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v/s Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2713, para No.8.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) - eviction - Landlord a partner in a firm - Requirement of landlord for bona fide occupation for use by firm - Death of landlord - New firm constituted with some outsiders as partners - Requirement of landlord for use of himself enures to his family members - But held, it did not enure to new firm. -
In the case of an eviction suit on the ground that the landlord requires the premises for occupation as a residence for himself and members of his family, after the death of landlord right to sue survives to the members of the deceased landlord's family. The requirement of occupation of family members of the landlord cannot be said to be the requirement of landlord himself and does not therefore cease on his death. After the death of original landlord, the senior member of his family takes his place and is well competent to continue the suit for eviction for his occupation and the occupation of other members of his family.
In case however, where the landlord who is a partner in a firm requires the premises reasonably and bona fide for occupation for himself for the use of the firm and when on the landlord's death a new firm is constituted with some outsiders as partners, the requirement of such deceased landlord cannot be said to be requirement of the partners. - Shantilal Thakordas v/s Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala, reported in AIR 1976 SC 2358 (FB).

Phool Rani v/s Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2110 is overruled.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) - eviction - Reasonable and bona fide requirement - Juridical possession of other premises by landlord - If can be considered in determining need of landlord.

For the purpose of determining whether the requirement of the landlord for the premises in question is reasonable and bona fide, what is necessary to be considered is not whether the landlord is juridically in possession of other premises, but whether they were available to him for occupation so that he cannot be said to need the premises in question. If a person is in occupation of the other premises on leave and licence, they are obviously not available to the landlord for occupation and cannot be taken into account for negativing the need of the landlord for the premises in question. - Phiroze Bamanji Desai v/s Chandrakant M. Patel, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1059.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) - Word 'himself' occurring under Section 13 (1) (g) can be read as himself and members of his family dependant upon him? Held. Yes.

Family of landlord being joint Hindu Family, requirement of landlord to settle his younger brothers in business in demised premises, can be held is bona fide. - Dwarkaprasad v/s Niranjan, AIR 2003 SC 2024.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) , S.13(1)(k) - Eviction suit - Ground, bona fide requirement for landlord's son to start business. Tenant running grocery business in suit shop and another shop, owned by landlord falling vacant. Landlord's son not occupying it because he was still to complete his education and not ready to start business. Concurrent finding of fact that need of landlord is bona fide and decree of eviction passed and confirmed. Reversal of, by High Court on the ground that landlord had not occupied the other shop when it fell vacant, whether sustainable? - Held. Not.

From the above evidence of the landlord's son Madhukar it is clear that by 1976 the said Madhukar had not completed his eduction and was not ripe enough to start a business. It was only in 1979 that the said Madhukar completed his education, and the landlord thought of making Madhukar to start a business in the suit shop and gave a notice for eviction and filed the present suit in 1979. Therefore, it is clear that the assumption of the High Court that the landlord could have given the shop which fell vacant in 1976 to his son Madhukar is contrary to the evidence placed on record. - Smt. Savitrabai Bhausaheb Kevate v/s Raichand Dhanraj Lunja, reported in AIR 1999 SC 602, para No.9.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) - Eviction - Ground - "Reasonably and bona fide required by landlord" - Means really genuine requirement from any reasonable standard but not on standard of dire need.

The grounds mentioned in clause (g) of Section 13(1) is couched in a language to provide emphasis to the genuineness of the requirement of the landlord by using the words "reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord". In fact both terms (reasonably and bona fide) are complimentary to each other in the context, for, any unreasonable requirement is not bona fide. Vice-versa can also be spelt that if the requirement has to be bona fide it must necessarily be reasonable also. But when the legislature employed the two terms together the message to be gathered is that the requirement must be really genuine from any reasonable standard. All the same, genuineness of the requirement is not to be tested on a par with dire need of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need. - Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v/s Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2226, para No.6.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g)- Eviction - Bona fide requirement - For starting business - Possessing know-how for doing business - Not a requirement. -

The landlord who seeks eviction of his tenant on ground of bona fide requirement of starting business need not establish that he possesses the know-how necessary for doing the business. If a person wants to start new business of his own it may be to his own advantage if he acquires experience in that line. But to say that any venture of a person in the business field without acquiring past experience reflects lack of his bonafides is a fallacious and unpragmatic approach. Many a business have flourished in this country by leaps and bounds which were started by novice in the field; and many other business ventures have gone haywire despite vast experience to the credit of the prepounders. The view that acquisition of sufficient know-how is a pre-condition for even proposing to start any business, if gains approval as a proposition of law, is likely to shatter the initiative of young talents and deter new entrepreneurs from entering any field of business or commercial activity. Experience can be earned even while the business is in progress. It is too pedantic a norm to be formulated that "no experience no venture". Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v/s Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkune, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2226, para Nos.11 & 12.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) - Eviction - Bona fide requirement - Proof - Not essential that landlord must enter witness box to support his case - Bona fide requirement is not a fact which could be established only by landlord.- Smt. Ramkubai v/s Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3089, para No.10.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) - Bona fide requirement - Determination of - Considerations thereof - Possession of premises as licensee can be termed as suitable alternative accommodation – Held. No.

Possession of premises as licensee cannot be considered as suitable alternative accommodation. Thus where in a suit for eviction filed on ground of bona fide requirement of landlady the husband of the landlady was in possession of an other flat as licensee, it would not disentitle the landlady from getting decree of eviction. - Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar v/s M/s. Traders and Agencies, reported in AIR 1997 SC 57.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) - Eviction - Bona fide required - Landlady living with her husband, grown up sons and grandchild in one bedroom apartment. Need of landlady for more accommodation under such circumstances can be said to be unreasonable. Held. No.

Denial of eviction to her by Court on ground that her eldest son was having a flat of his own is improper when there was no evidence to show that her son was actually in possession of said accommodation. - Mrs. Rena Drego , Appellant v. Lalchand Soni, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1990 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) , S.13(1)(hh) - eviction - Houses and Rents - Landlord bona fide needing premises for his occupation - S. 13 (1) (g) applies - His wanting to demolish and rebuild it before occupation does not make it fall under cl. (hh) - Occupation under cl. (g) includes occupation for demolition to make it fit for residence.

The contention that cl. (g) will apply only when the landlord bona fide needs to occupy the premises without making any alteration in them, i. e. to occupy the identical building which the tenant occupies, is not correct. There is no jurisdiction to give such a narrow construction either to the word 'premises' or to the word 'occupies' in cl. (g) of S. 13

The provisions of cl. (hh) cannot possibly apply to the case where a landlord reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for his own occupation even if he had to demolish premises and to erect a new building on them. The provisions of cl. (hh) apply to cases where the landlord does not require the premises for his own occupation but requires them for erecting a new building which is to be let out to tenants.

It is therefore clear that once the landlord established that he bona fide requires the premises for his occupation, he is entitled to recover possession of it from tenant in view of the provisions of sub-cl. (g) of S. 13 (1) irrespective of the fact whether he would occupy the premises without making any alteration to them or after making the necessary alterations.

Occupation of the premises in cl. (g) does not necessarily refer to occupation as residence. The owner can occupy a place by making use of it in any manner. In a case like the present, if the landlords on getting possession start their work of demolition within the prescribed period, they would have occupied the premises in order to erect a building fit for their occupation. - Ramniklal Pitambardas Mehta v/s Indradaman Amratlal Sheth, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1676 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g), S.13AA - tenancy - Evidence - Benefit under Section 13-A1 - Landlord, a retired army officer acquiring premises, already in possession of tenant, after his retirement - Not entitled to the benefit under S. 13-AA for recovery of the possession of premises from such tenant.

Section 13-AA cannot be availed of by an ex-member of the armed forces to recover from the tenant possession of a building which he acquires after his retirement. Section 13-A1 cannot be liberally interpreted to cover all retired members of the Armed Forces irrespective of the fact whether they where landlords while they were in service or not, as such a liberal interpretation of S. 13-AA is likely to expose it to a successful challenge on the basis of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Thus it has to be read down as conferring benefit only on those members of the Armed Forces who were the landlords of the premises in question while they were in service even thought they may avail of it after their retirement.

Section 13-AA did not also govern the case of a person who had retired long back from the Armed Forces and was gainfully employed elsewhere and while so employed had let out his premises with open eyes. Where the retired Army Officer, who had become the landlord of the dispute premises, already in possession of the tenant, by way of gift after his retirement , had filed a suit for eviction of such tenant, he would not be entitled to the benefit of S. 13-A1. When he had not established that he was really in bona fide need of the disputed premises, he would not also be entitled to benefit under S. 13 (1) (g). - Mrs. Winifred Ross v/s Mrs. Ivy Fonseca, reported in AIR 1984 SC 458.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(g) and S.13(i), S.17(1) - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Recovery of possession by landlord - Stipulation in S. 17 (1) regarding period of one month for occupation - Applies both to decree passed under S. 13 (1) (g) as well as to those passed under S. 13 (1) (i).

When S. 17(1) refers to the requirement that the premises must be occupied by the landlord, the occupation intended by the provision is different from possession, because the first clause of S. 17(1) makes a clear distinction between occupation and delivery of possession. The effect of this clause is that when a landlord who has obtained a decree for possession executes the decree and obtains possession of the premises in question he must occupy them within a period of one month from the date he recovers possession. The first clause of S. 17 (1) deals with decrees passed under S. 13 (1) (g) and (i) and on a fair and reasonable construction of that clause it is clear that the requirement as to the period of one month applies as much to the case of occupation as to the case of erection of the work contemplated by clauses of S. 13 (1) (g) and (i), respectively. - Krishanlal Ishwarlal Desai v/s Bai Vijkor, reported in AIR 1967 SC 375 (Five Judges).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) (as applicable to Gujarat) S.13(1)(g) and S.25 - tenancy - Reasonableness of landlord's requirements to be judged in the light of Section 25.

In view of the wording of the non obstante clause of Section 13 (1), the provisions of that section must have priority over the rest of the Act, except for what is contained in Section 15. But conceding to Section 13(1) its rightful precedence and granting that it stands supreme except for Section 15, according to its own terms the Court has to be satisfied that the requirement of the landlord is reasonable. A requirement which runs in the teeth of Section 25 and which, if established may throw the landlord open to the risk of a prosecution cannot be called reasonable.

Whether the requirement of the landlord is reasonable or not is to be judged from all the facts and circumstances of the case and a highly relevant circumstance bearing on the reasonableness of the landlord's requirement is that the purpose for which the possession is sought is a purpose for which the premises cannot be used save on pain of penal consequences. Courts ought not to construe a statute in a manner which will encourage the breach of any of its provisions and, most certainly, a decree ought not to be passed which if honoured will attract penal consequences. - 1974 Guj LR 560, Reversed; Civil Revn. Appln. No. 2172 of 1957, D/-.3-9-1959 (Bom); AIR 1972 Bom 354 and Civil Revn. Appln. No. 896 of 1963, D/-7-3-l967 (Guj), Approved. - Bapubhai Mohanbhai v/s Mahila Sahakari Udyog Mandir, reported in AIR 1975 SC 2128 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(hhh) - Eviction for purpose of demolition ordered by Local Authority - Municipal Commissioner granting permission to raise temporary structure under City of Bombay (Building Works Restriction) Act ( 18 of 1944), subject to condition that the same would be pulled down whenever required to give effect to any improvement Scheme - Notice of demolition issued after expiry of Act of 1944 - Held, notice was an 'order' within the meaning of Clause (hhh) Effect of expiration of a temporary Act stated.
Though no statutory rule or bye-law was made under the Bombay Act, 1944, the Municipal Commissioner had plenary power under Section 3 of the Act to authorise by means of a written permission the construction of any building or structure in the area described in the Schedule to the Act subject to such conditions, if any, as he might have thought fit to specify in the permission. In the instant case the permission having been granted subject to the express condition that the plaintiff shall pull down or remove the temporary structure in question whenever called upon to do so and the same having been annexed to and made to go with the ownership of the structure in respect whereof, it was granted by virtue of S. 8 of the Bombay Act, 1944. it could be enforced by the Municipal Commissioner under Regulation Nos. 36 and 38 of the special Regulations made by the Arbitrator which became a part and parcel of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 by virtue of Sec. 51 (3) of the Act as also under Sec. 55(1) (a) read with Rule 28 made under Section 87 of the Act.

Thus the direction in the notice for demolition of the premises in question which clearly had its genesis in the aforesaid statutory provisions did constitute an order within the meaning of Clause (hhh) of sub-section (1) of S. 13 of the Bombay Rents Control Act, 1947 and the plea that no statutory rule or bye law having been made under the Bombay Act, 1944 and the Notice not being based on any statutory power exercisable by the Commissioner did not constitute such an order was wholly untenable. - M/s. Velji Lakshmi v/s M/s. Benett Coleman and Com., reported AIR 1977 SC 1884. para Nos.28 &29.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(hh) and Cl.(hhh) - houses and rents - Difference between Cl. (hh) and Cl. (hhh) - Requirements of Clause (hhh) - Whether subject to conditions embodied in sub-s. (3A).

The ground specified in Cl.(hhh) of sub-section (1) of S. 13 of the Bombay Rents Control Act, 1947 does not stand on the same footing as the ground specified in its preceding clause viz. Clause (hh). Whereas Clause (hh) which appears to have been enacted with a view to provide better and more housing accommodation in the interest of the public relates to a landlord's bona fide intention to demolish the building of his own volition and to erect a new building in its place, clause (hhh) which was inserted by Bombay Act 61 of 1953 inter alia to prevent a landlord or a tenant from impeding the town improvement or town planning scheme which is presumed to be in public interest relates to compulsory demolition ordered by a local or competent authority. It is because of this difference that the ground specified in Cl. (hhh) is not subject to the conditions and restrictions embodied in sub-s. (3A) of S. 13 and Sections 17A, 17B and 17C of the Bombay Rents Control Act, 1947. It is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the ground specified in this clause that the order of demolition is issued by the local or competent authority in exercise of the powers vested in it and the order discloses that in the opinion of the local or competent authority, the premises are required for the immediate purpose of demolition. - M/s. Velji Lakshmi v/s M/s. Benett Coleman and Com., reported AIR 1977 SC 1884. para No.30.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1) (hhh) - eviction - Eviction on ground of premises being required for immediate purpose of demolition - Whether it is the Local Authority and not the landlord who has power to evict tenant under Clause (hhh).

It is the landlord and not the Local Authority who has the power to evict the tenant on the ground specified in Cl. (hhh) of sub-s. (1) of Section 13 of the Bombay Rents Control Act. 1947. The submission that it is the local authority who has the power to evict the tenant overlooks the provisions of S. 507 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. 1888 whereunder the landlord can get an order against the tenant to allow him (the landlord) reasonable facilities to enter the leased premises in order to enable him to comply with the notice issue by the Municipal Commissioner. - M/s. Velji Lakshmi v/s M/s. Benett Coleman and Com., reported AIR 1977 SC 1884. para No.33.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(i) - houses and rents - Misery due to scarcity of accommodation - Consideration - Humanist approach on guidelines set out in S. 13 (1) (i) – Permissibility.

Where in a suit, under S. 13 (1) (i) of the Act, for eviction from suit premises consisting of three rooms which were let out to 1st appellant, the eldest of three brothers, for benefit of joint family, the concurrent findings of Courts below were that the new house built by 1st appellant was his own and not that of joint family and that the suit lease was for benefit of joint family, Supreme Court, in appeal under Article 136, making a humanist approach adopted a course of 'live and let live' and directed the tenant, in the interest of justice, to surrender half of the portion after getting it partitioned into equal halves. - Jivram Ranchhoddas Thakkar v/s Tulshiram Ratanchand Mantri, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1357 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(i) - lease - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Applicability - Lease of open land - Tenant at his own cost building shed of corrugated iron sheets on portion of land before execution of rent note - Condition in rent note that structure was to be removed by tenant on termination of tenancy - Held, tenancy was in respect of open land only and hence S. 13 (1)(i) was applicable. -Krishnapasuba Rao Kundapur v/s Dattatraya Krishnaji Karani, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1024 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(1)(k) - eviction - Eviction under - Non-user of premises for purpose, for which they were let out, for period of more than six months prior to date of suit without reasonable cause - Tenant would be liable for eviction.

All that S.13(1)(k)contemplates is that the premises had not been used for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit without reasonable cause. It does not say that mere non-user of the premises will make him liable for eviction. The scheme of the Act as it appears from the preamble is to consolidate the law relating to the control of rents and repairs of certain premises, of rates of hotels and lodging houses and of evictions. The control had to be brought in because of the scarcity of accommodation in the cities. If this was the preamble of the Act it cannot be said that a tenant may take a premises on rent and keep it locked for years together without using it in the absence of any reasonable cause. The intendment of the legislature could be carried out only when the premises is used and not kept vacant for years together.

The plaintiff had purchased a plot under a registered sale deed. The tenant who was occupying the said plot had accepted the plaintiff as owner under a registered rent note. The rent note provided that the said premises shall not be let out to anyone else, and that on the expiry of the period of five years the tenant shall remove the constructions made by him at his own expense and hand over to the plaintiff the premises in the condition in which it was let out. Subsequently the tenant had sublet a portion of the said premises to the sub-tenant contrary to the terms of the rent note. On expiry of period of lease contemplated by rent note the plaintiff had filed a suit for eviction of the tenant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the premises in question had not been used by the tenant for a period of more than six months prior to the date of the suit without reasonable cause and, therefore, he was liable to eviction under S. 13(1)(k). The plaintiff had also established the purpose for which the premises had been let out to the tenant.

Held, that the tenant was liable to be evicted under S. 13(1)(k). It was not proper to say that the construction of super-structures on the land in dispute was itself a user. As the super structures had already been built before the tenant took the land from the plaintiff under rent note. The stipulation in the rent note that "even if we use or do not use or keep the said property closed we the tenants are bound to pay the rent as stated above." Only talks of the liability of the tenant to pay the rent even if he does not use the property and keeps it closed. This,however, does not mean that the tenant can keep the premises closed without using it for years together before the suit. Since, the sub-tenancy was created long before the Act came into force, there would be no question of eviction of sub-tenant as the sub-tenancy was not illegal. - Vora Rahimbhai Haji Hasanbhai Popat v/s Vora Sunderlal Manilal, reported in AIR 1986 SC 174.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(2) - eviction - tenancy - 'Comparative hard-ship' - Tenant an aged and infirm person inducting stranger in demised premises - Necessity of landlord, a displaced person, proved - Held, eviction order would not cause hardship to tenant.

Landlord, a merchant, was a displaced person from Africa who was carrying on business in Kampala in Uganda. Due to political upheaval in that country in 1964 he along with his family, migrated to India and began living in a rented house in Rajkot where he also owned a building. He filed a suit for eviction from the said building which consisted of a shop on the ground floor on the ground that he reasonably and bona fide required the suit premises for starting his business. The tenant who was aged and infirm was not in actual possession of the suit premises but had inducted one stranger as his licensee who was in occupation thereof and was paying him an amount by way of maintenance. The licensee owned a separate shop of his own from where he was carrying on his business and had taken the suit premises from the tenant for using it as a godown. Landlord had been carrying on business in Kampala for over 30 years.

He had gone back to Uganda for winding up his business there. The tenant died during the pendency of appeal to Supreme Court.
Held, that the tenant was aged and infirm and had inducted a stranger as his licensee under an arrangement who was paying a fixed amount to him by way of maintenance did not imply that the passing of a decree under Sec. 13 (1) (g) would cause greater hardship to the tenant than to the landlord. The fact that the landlord had gone back to Uganda for winding up his business was indicative of his intention to start his business from the suit premises and to settle in India. Further, old age and infirmity could not be relevant considerations in judging the issue of greater hardship under Section 13 (2) when the tenant was not carrying on the business himself from the suit premises and had parted with possession in favour of a stranger. Furthermore, the tenant having died during the pendency of appeal to the Supreme Court the question of greater hardship under Section 13 (2) did not arise. - Bhaichand Ratanshi v/s Laxmishanker Tribhovan, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1690 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13(2) - Comparative hardship - Determination - Relevant factors – whether words other 'reasonable accommodation' in Section 13(2) mean accommodation as suitable as suit accommodation.- Held. No.

The Act does not lay down any guidelines or relevant factors based whereon the question of comparative hardship is to be decided. A slight indication is given in the first para of S. 13 (2) that regard must be had to (i) all the circumstances of the case, (ii) including the question whether other reasonable accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant. The expression 'other reasonable accommodation' as employed here does not mean an accommodation suitable in all respects as the suit accommodation is. The legislature has chosen it appropriate to leave the determination of issue on sound discretion of the Court. - Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v/s Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2713, para No.11.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) S.13(3)(a) – S.29 - Is it open for the appellate or the revisional Court to stay the execution of the order or the decree on terms, including a direction to pay monthly rent at a rate higher than the contractual rent?- Held- Yes.

Held that in fixing the amount subject to payment of which the execution of the order/decree is stayed, the Court would exercise restraint and would not fix any excessive, fanciful or punitive amount. Further, if the tenant's appeal/revision is allowed and the eviction decree is set aside, naturally, the status quo ante would be restored and the tenant would be entitled to get back all the amounts that he was made to pay in excess of the contractual rent. That being the position, the amount fixed by the Court over and above the contractual monthly rent, ordinarily, should not be directed to be paid to the landlord during the pendency of the appeal/revision. The deposited amount, along with the accrued interest, should only be paid after the final disposal to either side depending upon the result of the case. In case for some reason the Court finds it just and expedient that the amount fixed by it should go to the landlord even while the matter is pending, it must be careful to direct payment to the landlord on terms so that in case the final decision goes in favour of the tenant the payment should be made to him without any undue delay or complications. - State of Maharashtra v/s M/s. Super Max International Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2010 722, para Nos.46 to 48.
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13AA - Remedy under, available to a member or retired member of Armed Forces to recover possession of premises - Not restricted to cases where he had himself let out the premises when he was member of Armed Forces.

It is impossible on the plain language of S. 13-AA to further read down the provision as enabling a member or a retired member of the armed forces to recover possession of the premises only if he had himself originally let out the premises when he was a member of the armed forces and not if the tenancy had commenced before he became the landlord of the premises either by inheritance, partition, or any other mode of transfer of property. To place such an interpretation would be to virtually rewrite the provision. The language of S. 13-AA which is sufficiently plain does not warrant or invite such an interpretation.

It is true that the Act is a welfare legislation designed among other matters, to protect tenants from harassment and unreasonable eviction by landlords and it should, therefore, be interpreted in a broad and liberal spirit so as to further and not to constrain the object of the Act. It is also true that the exclusionary provisions in the Act should be construed strictly so as to give a wide amplitude to the principal object of the legislation and to prevent its evasion on deceptive grounds. But this does not mean that the intention of the legislature, expressed with sufficient vocabular clarity or gathered by reference to permissible sources, may be by-passed to accommodate individual versions of what may appear reasonable. Notwithstanding the expressed legislative bias in favour of the tenant, the legislature itself made a serious departure in Section 13-AA from the general rule so as to lean in favour of landlords who are or were members of the armed services, and who because of the exigencies of their service were not able to occupy their own premises during the course of their services. The intention of the legislature is expressed with sufficient clarity by the language of S. 13-AA. - Shivram Anand Shiroor v/s Mrs. Radhabai Shantaram Kowshik, reported in AIR 1984 SC 786 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.13AA - Eviction - Special provision for members of armed forces - Certificate of authorised officer produced by member of armed force. Whether Court cann go beyond it. Held. No.

Miss Kanta Udharam Jagasia , Appellant v. C. K. S. Rao, reported in AIR 1998 SC 569.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.14 - houses and rents - Sub-tenant - Who is - Person entering into possession of portion of demised premises only as paying guest - He does not acquire status of sub-tenant. - Rusi Dinshawji Deboo v/s Cawasji Rustomji Patel, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1771.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.14(2) (as inserted by Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973), S.15A - eviction - Statutory tenant - Leave and licence agreement between tenant of suit premises and licensee entered on 1-4-1967 - Clauses of agreement stating that licensee was permitted to use and occupy premises exclusively - Interim injunction against tenant from inducting third party in suit premises, obtained by landlord subsequent to date of leave and licence agreement - Licensee occupying premises later - Licensee is nevertheless statutory tenant - O.21, R.102 Civil P.C. not applicable. - Bhailal Hukamchand Shah v/s Narandas Shamji, reported in AIR 1989 SC 2193.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.14 and S.15(2) (as amended in Gujarat in 1959), S.28 - eviction - Houses and Rents - Ejectment of sub-tenant - Suit for ejectment on ground of sub-letting and arrears of rent against tenant and sub-tenant - Suit dismissed on the score that sub-tenant was protected by S. 15 - Appellate Court, holding sub-tenant to be a trespasser, ordering him alone to be ejected-In revision High Court confirming order of ejectment on ground of arrears of rent - Propriety of appellate Court's order - Appellate Court on its finding that appellant was a trespasser had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal - Order of eviction was, therefore, bad in law. - Hiralal Vallabbram v/s Sheth Knsturbhai Lalbhai, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1853 (FB).
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.14, S.15A - Licensee - Meaning of - Licensees created whether by landlords or tenants before 1-2-1973 and in occupation of at least single room - Are entitled to be tenants - Specific term for creating licence whether exists or not in original agreement is immaterial.

All licensees created by landlords or by the tenant before 1st February, 1973 and who were in actual occupation of a premises which was not less than a room as licensees on 1st February, 1973 be the licensees of the landlord or tenant and whether there be any term in the original agreement for tenancy permitting creation of such tenancy or licences or not they would become tenant and enjoy the rights granted under the Act specially those mentioned in S. 14(2) of the Act. Until a decree of eviction is passed against the tenant, the tenant can create a licence and where the licence was created before 1st February, 1973, the licensee must, by the express terms of Section 15A of the Act, continue to be a tenant of the landlord in respect of the premises in question. A tenant protected by a statute is entitled to create a licence. The licence is not an interest in property. It is purely a personal right. The various amendments in the Act introduced simultaneously with S. 15A and the Aims and Objects indicate that the entire scheme of those amendments was to protect licensees. It cannot, therefore, be said that the scheme of the Act is intended to protect only the licensees of the tenant. On the contrary all licensees who were there on 1st February, 1973 were to be protected and subsequent licences were made illegal as was done in the case of sub-tenancy from 1959. It was an attempt to protect very large number of legitimate persons in occupation and also to eliminate future mischief.- Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v/s Ashalata S. Guram, reported in AIR 1987 SC 117.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.15 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - (Obiter) - Open land let - Lessee constructing building on it - Sub-letting of building - Bar of Section 15 will operate only in the way of letting out the land of which lease had been taken, but will not stand in the way of letting the building constructed on the land. - Mrs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy v/s Khemchand Gorumal, reported in AIR 1966 SC 1939 (FB).

Section 15(2) is sufficiently wide to include even an oral arrangement pursuant to which sub-lessee might enter upon land and continue in its possession?- Held – Yes. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v/s M/s. Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1793, para No.25.

In the light of the principles stated by this Court in Om Prakash Gupta's case (1964) 1 SCC 259, the inevitable conclusion is that Small Causes Court at Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the owners of the suit premises and in view of Section 28 of the Act, the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, will have jurisdiction and suit for eviction is only maintainable provided that a landlord-tenant relationship is established. - Laxmidas Morarji (D) by L.Rs. v/s Miss Behrose Darab Madan, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2711 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.15(2) - A subsequent assignee from a sub-lessee is not entitled to protection under Section 15 (2).

Section 15 (2) of the Act protects only sub-lease or assignment or transfer by the tenant but does not protect subsequent assignments or transfers by assignees or transferees. The word 'tenant' in Section 15 of the Act means the contractual tenant and not the statutory tenant. The legislature by the Ordinance of 1959 intended to confer protection on sub-tenants of contractual tenants. The Ordinance did not confer any protection on further transfer or further sub-letting by sub-lessees of the contractual tenants. - Jai Singh Murarji v/s M/s. Sovani (P) Ltd., reported in AIR 1973 SC 772 (Four Judges).
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.15A - Deemed tenant - Court receiver taking symbolic possession of property which was in occupation of licensee company which was deemed tenant by virtue of S. 15-A. Subsequent amalgamation of tenant company with other company - Sister company of same group coming in possession of premises in question after amalgamation scheme was approved by High Court and Chamber summons was taken out by owners of premises on ground that sister-company which subsequently came in possession of premises was in unauthorised occupation being inducted without leave of Court. Order rejecting chamber summons on ground that dispute could not be resolved in summary proceedings and Court Receiver had to adopt procedure under Rent Act, is sustainable in eyes of law? - Held- No.

It would not be correct to read ratio laid down in the case of Anthony C. Leo v. Nandlal Bal Krishnan, (1996) 11 SCC 376 : (1996 AIR SCW 4338 : AIR 1997 SC 173) to mean that if the trespasser or any person who obtains the possession after the Receiver took over symbolic possession or actual possession of the property and if such person pleads that he is a tenant the only remedy for the Court Receiver is to approach the Rent Court under the Bombay Rent Act. For instance, a person who is put in possession as an agent of the Receiver inducts a stranger and if such a third person claims a tenancy the question is whether Receiver should be directed to adopt the proceedings under the Bombay Rent Act for appropriate declaration and reliefs. If such a course is required to follow, in our opinion, the very object of Order XL, Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be defeated. The High Court in our opinion has totally misread and misinterpreted the ratio of Anthony C. Leo's case (supra). We must, however, make it clear that we are not laying down a broad proposition that in every case the Receiver can resort to the summary proceeding of this nature. The question would have to be decided by the Court with reference to the pleadings of the parties and the proof thereof. On perusal of the judgment of the High Court we find that the High Court has not considered various rival contentions raised by the parties in their pleadings. The High Court has also not considered the effect of non-renewal of the Leave and Licence Agreement after the expiry of its period nor it had considered the effect of Section 15 and 15-A of the Bombay Rent Act. The High Court has also not considered what would be the effect of changes in the composition of Suhrid Geigy Trading Limited after the Receiver took the symbolic possession. All these various factual and legal contentions will have to be considered bearing in mind the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act as well as Companies Act. - Usha Harshadkumar Dalal v/s M/s. ORG Systems, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2719, para No.14.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) , S.15A - license - Protected licensee - Who can be - Statutory tenant under Rent Act has no transferable interest and, therefore, cannot create licence. Licensee from statutory tenant cannot therefore get protection under S. 15A.- S. J. Pande v/s P. K. Balakrishnan, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2132.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.15A - eviction - Eviction - Licensees becoming deemed tenant under S.15A - Can only be evicted in accordance with provisions of Act - Cannot be evicted under S.41 of Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. - Mani Nariman Daruwala and Bharucha v/s Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1494.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.18(1) - houses and rents - Interpretation of Statutes - Houses and Rents - Construction of - Interpretation of Statutes - Penal Statutes.

The provisions of S. 18(1) of Bombay Act 57 of 1947 are penal in nature and it is a well settled rule of construction of penal statutes that if two possible and reasonable constructions can be put upon a penal provision, the Court must lean towards that construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than the one which imposes penalty. It is not competent to the Court to stretch the meaning of an expression used by the Legislature in order to carry out the intention of the Legislature. - Tolaram Relumal and another, Appellants v. The State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1954 SC 496 (Five Judges).
Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.19(1) - Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.108(j) - Houses and Rents - Relinquishment and assignment of tenancy – Distinction.

The distinction between an assignment on the one hand and relinquishment or surrender on the other is too plain to be ignored. In the case of an assignment, the assignor continues to be liable to the landlord for the performance of his obligations under the tenancy and this liability is contractual while the assignee becomes liable by reason of privity of estate the consent of the landlord to an assignment is not necessary, in the absence of a contract of local usage to the contrary. But in the case of relinquishment, it cannot be a unilateral transaction; it can only be in favour of the lessor by mutual agreement between them. The relinquishment of possession must be to the lessor or one who holds his interest. In fact, a surrender or relinquishment terminates the lessee's rights and lets in the lessor. - W. H. King v/s Republic of India, reported in AIR 1952 SC 156 (Five Judges).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.19(2) - Interpretation of Statutes- Interpretation of Statutes - Houses and Rents - Relinquishment of tenancy - Meaning - Held, transaction amounted to assignment - Conviction set aside.

As the statute creates an offence and imposes a penalty of fine and imprisonment, the words of the section must be strictly construed in favour of the subject. The Court is not concerned so much with what might possibly have been intended as with what has been actually said in and by the language employed.

A received Rs. 29,000 from B and in return handed over the vacant possession of his flat to B under a written document which stated : "I hereby hand over vacant possession of my flat no .. etc., to Mr. . . . . from this day onward and that I have no claim whatsoever over this flat and Mr. . . . . will pay the rent directly to the landlord." On being prosecuted under S. 19 (2) of the Bombay Act :
Held, that the document did not evidence any 'relinquishment of tenancy of the premises' with S. 19 (1) of the Act and hence could not be convicted under sub-s. (2).

Further that the transaction merely amounted to an assignment of tenancy which, though declared unlawful under S. 15 was not made an offence by the Act. - W. H. King v/s Republic of India, reported in AIR 1952 SC 156 (Five Judges).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.20 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Right of tenant to recover overpaid rent either by deduction or by separate suit - Must be exercised within six months.

Section 20 gives the tenant a general right of recovery of the over-paid rent within six months of the date of payment. Without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, the tenant may deduct the over-payment from any rent payable by him to the landlord. The deduction provided is one mode of recovery. If the amount is incapable of recovery because of the bar of limitation, it cannot be recovered by deduction. In other words the right of recovery by deduction is barred at the same time as the right of recovery by suit. If the tenant seeks recovery of the overpaid amount he must bring the suit or make the deduction within six months. - Jamnadas Harakhchand v/s Narayanlal Bansilal, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1221.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.20 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents – Scope.

Section 20 gives the tenant a general right of recovery of the overpaid rent within six months from the date of payment. Without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, he may deduct the overpayment from any rent payable by him to the landlord. Deduction is one mode of recovery. If the amount is incapable of recovery because of the bar of limitation, it cannot be recovered by deduction. In other words, the right of recovery by deduction is barred at the same time as the right of recovery by suit. If the tenant seeks recovery of the overpaid amount he must bring the suit or make the deduction within six months. - Maganlal Chhotabhai Desai v/s Chandrakant Motilal, reported in AIR 1969 SC 37 (FB). Para No.7.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.24 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Withholding of essential supply.
The supply of tap water is an essential supply. Where the supply of municipal water had been cut off by the Municipality as a result of the default in payment of municipal dues, by the appellant's predecessor-in-title:

Held, that the appellant was not to blame for the default in payment of municipal dues, but it was open to him to pay the dues and have the water connection restored. He might not have been directly responsible for the cutting off the supply of municipal water, but it was within his power to get the supply restored by the Municipality on payment of prescribed fee. Hence, in so far as the appellant omitting to do so, such an omission was attributable to him within the meaning of explanation II which was inserted into the Act in 1953. Therefore the appellant was continuing to withhold an essential supply within the meaning of S. 24, as it stood in 1953.

Section 24 makes it essential that the particular essential supply should have been available for the use of the tenant at some time when the Act was in force. If, on the other hand, the section were construed in the sense that the supply should have been "enjoyed" at some time in the remote past, that is, before the Act was enforced, the act of the landlord, when it was committed, might not have been penal ; but the same act would become penal on the coming into effect of the Act. In that sense, it would amount to ex-post facto legislation, and such could not have been the intention of the Legislature an intention which would come within the prohibition of Art. 20 (1) of the Constitution. It would be straining the language of the section to say that "enjoyed" should mean "had the right to enjoy". That this was not the intention of the Legislature, becomes clear on an examination of the terms of sub-s. (3) of that section. It speaks of "the tenant has been in enjoyment of the essential supply or service and that it was cut off or withheld by the landlord", which imports recent "enjoyment" until the supply was cut off, and not, "enjoyment" in the remote past. The provisions of S. 24 have to be construed as a whole, in order to find out the true intention of the Legislature. - Kanaiyalal Chandulal Monim v/s Indumati T. Potdar, reported in AIR 1958 SC 444 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28 - Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.9 - Civil Court - inherent powers - Power of Civil Court to decide question to its own jurisdiction.

A Civil Court has inherent power to decide the question of its own jurisdiction, although, as a result of its enquiry, it may turn out that it has no jurisdiction over the suit. Thus, a City Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether it has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession of premises brought by a landlord against a tenant in view of S. 28, Bombay Rents, Hotels and Lodging House Rates control Act. - Messrs. Bhatia. Co-operative Housing- Society Limited v/s D. C. Patel, reported in AIR 1953 SC 16 (Four Judges).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28 - Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.1 , R.10 - houses and rents - Small Causes Court - Houses and Rents - Jurisdiction of Small Cause Court.

Where a landlord brings a suit for possession and rent against his tenant after giving a notice to quit and also impleads therein a sub-tenant to whom the premises were illegally sub-let by the tenant the suit would never the less be one between a landlord and tenant within the meaning of S. 28 and the Small Cause Court would have jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The sub-tenant though not a necessary party to the suit is a proper party and his joinder cannot alter the nature of the suit.

"Any claim or question" in S. 28 need not necessarily be one between a landlord and a tenant. In any case, once there is a suit between a landlord and a tenant relating to the recovery of rent or possession of the premises the Small Cause Court acquires the jurisdiction not only to entertain that suit but also "to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions" which may properly be raised in such a suit. - Messrs, Importers and Manufactures Ltd. v/s Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala, reported in AIR 1953 SC 73 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents – Scope.

The provisions of S. 28 cover a case where in a suit one party alleges that he is the landlord and denies that the other is his tenant or vice versa and the relief asked for in the suit is in the nature of a claim which arises out of the Act or any of its provisions. On a proper interpretation of the provisions of S. 28 the suit contemplated in that section is not only a suit between a landlord and a tenant in which that relationship is admitted but also a suit in which it is claimed that the relationship of a landlord and a tenant within the meaning of the Act subsists between the parties. The Courts which have jurisdiction to entertain and try such a suit are the courts specified in S. 28 and no other. Where the plaint in the suit admits that the defendants were landlords of the premises at various stages and the plaintiffs were their tenants, the suit is essentially a suit between a landlord and a tenant. The suit does not cease to be a suit between a landlord and a tenant merely because the defendants denied the claim of the plaintiffs. Whether the plaintiffs are the tenants would be a claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions which has to be dealt with by the court trying the suit. - Babulal Bhuramal and another, Appellants v. Nandram Shivram, reported in AIR 1958 SC 677 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28(1), S.29A - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Bombay City Civil Court, jurisdiction of - Scope and effect of S. 28 (1) - Suit by licenser against licensee for reliefs based on termination of licence - Defence raising question as to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant - Suit not within exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes but can be entertained by Bombay City Civil Court.

The plaintiff instituted a suit in the City Civil Court, Bombay, asking for a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to enter into or remain in possession of a certain shop in Greater Bombay and for a permanent injunction restraining them from entering the shop. The allegations on which the claim to these reliefs was based were that the defendants had been granted a licence to use the shop of which the plaintiffs were the tenants under the owner and that defendants were wrongfully continuing there in spite of the termination of the licence and were thereby preventing the plaintiffs from carrying on their business in the shop. The defence to the suit was that the relationship between the parties was not that of licenser and licensee but that the shop had in fact been sub-let to them and that the agreement between the parties had been given the form of a licence only as a cloak to protect the plaintiffs from ejectment under the Act by its landlord on the ground of unlawful subletting. The defendants contended that as they were really tenants, their landlords plaintiffs were not entitled to remove them from possession in view of the provisions of the Act :

Held that S. 28 (1) of the Act was not attracted and the suit was not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. The City Civil Court, Bombay, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.- Raizada Topandas v/s M/s. Gorakhram Gokalchand, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1348 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28 - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - Dispute between housing society and member referred to arbitrators under Section 54, Bombay Co-operative Societies Act-Housing society claiming declaration that opposite party has ceased to be member and for order for delivery of vacant possession of premises belonging to it on the ground that he had made persistent defaults in payment of loan -No allegation made by Society of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant-Mere fact that the opposite party raised such a plea before the committee of arbitrators will not attract the operation of S. 28 of the Act and oust the jurisdiction of arbitrators to grant relief of possession. - Vasudev Gopalkrishna Tambwekar v/s Board of Liquidators, Happy Home Co-operative Housing Society, Ltd., reported in AIR 1967 SC 369 FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28(1) - Arbitration agreements regulated by Bombay Rent Act - Dispute as to possession of premises - Court of Small Causes alone and not arbitrator has jurisdiction.

Public policy requires that contracts to the contrary which nullify the rights conferred on tenants by the Act cannot be permitted. Therefore, public policy requires that parties cannot also be permitted to contract out of the legislative mandate which requires certain kind of disputes to be settled by special Courts constituted by the Act. Thus, arbitration agreements between parties whose rights are regulated by the Bombay Rent Act cannot be recognised by a Court of law. So the question whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or such other jurisdictional questions may have to be determined by the Court where it falls for determination - be it the Court of Small Causes or the ordinary Civil Court. If the jurisdictional question is decided in favour of the Court of exclusive jurisdiction the suit or proceeding before the ordinary Civil Court must cease to the extent its jurisdiction is ousted.

Both by reason of S. 28 of the Bombay Rent Act and by reason of the broader considerations of public policy, the Court of Small Causes has and the Arbitrator has not the jurisdiction to decide the question whether the respondent licensor-landlord is entitled to seek possession of the two studios and other premises together with machinery and equipment from the appellant-licensee-tenant. The relationship between the parties being that of licensor-landlord and licensee-tenant and the dispute between them relating to the possession of the licensed-demised premises, there is no help from the conclusion that the Court of Small Causes alone has the jurisdiction and the Arbitrator has none to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. - Natraj Studios (P) Ltd v/s Navrang Studios, reported in AIR 1981 SC 537 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28 - houses and rents - Jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes - Composite relief for possession of land and of superstructure thereon - Entire suit cannot be rejected - Court can grant relief regarding possession of land.

The jurisdiction conferred by S. 28 enables the Court to try any suit between the landlord and the tenant relating to recovery of possession of the premises. The premises was the plots of land only and not the superstructure. The plaintiff/landlord of the land was entitled to claim the relief for possession of his land and in effect the decree for possession of the land would mean that the land should be delivered to him without the structure. The jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to grant an effective decree for possession of the land could not be denied. Though the plaintiff had sought two reliefs one under the Bombay Rent Act and another under the Contract, the entire plaint could not be rejected. So far as the relief of possession of the premises, i.e. the land was concerned, it was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court. In asking for the relief for possession of the land, the plaintiff was entitled to incidental and consequential reliefs such as for effectively taking possession of the plot without the structures. The prayer in the plaint asking for possession of the land including the structures would not take the suit out of the competence of the Small Cause Court. In asking for relief as to possession of the land, he was entitled to ask for the demolition of the structures and for grant of vacant possession of the plots.- Jamnadas Dharamdas v/s Dr. J. Joseph Farrei, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1605 (FB), para Nos. 10,18 & 21.

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28 - eviction - Existence of one of the statutory grounds mentioned in Ss. 12 and 13 is a sine qua non for assign a decree for eviction.

The Rent Court under the Act is not competent to pass a decree for possession either in invitum or with the consent of the parties on a ground which is dehors the Act or ultra vires the Act. A prohibitory mandate to the Rent Court that it shall not travel beyond the statutory grounds mentioned in Sections 12 and 13, and to the parties that they shall not contract out of those statutory grounds in inherent in the public policy built into the statute. 12 Guj L.R. 1012, Approved. (1921) 2 K.B. 291, Rel. on. (Paras 16 , 17 , 18)
The mere fact that O.23 R.3 of C.P.C. is applicable to the proceedings in a suit under the Bombay Rent Act, does not remove that prohibition on the Rent Court or empower into make a decree for eviction dehors the statute. - Nagindas Ramdas v/s Dalpatram locharam, reported in AIR 1974 SC 471 (FB).

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28 - eviction - Eviction suit - Joinder of sub-tenant – Effect of.Joinder of sub-tenant in a suit for eviction does not make it any the less a suit between landlord and tenant. Hence it cannot be said that so far as sub-tenant is concerned the suit is one as against a trespasser and so the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain it. AIR 1953 SC 73, Relied on. AIR 1967 SC 1853, Dist.- Thakker Keshavalal Mohanlal v/s Parekh Amrutlal Harilal, reported in AIR 1973 SC 1099.

140. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.28(1) - Small Cause Court - Houses and Rents - Exclusive jurisdiction of Small Cause Court - Relationship of landlord and tenant between parties in respect of every matter covered by Section 28 (1) not necessary.

1) Houses and Rents - Registered agreement embodying deed of charge for construction loan executed by defendants in favour of plaintiff - Deed complying with all the requirements of Section 18 (3) Defendants failing to let out promises after completion to the plaintiff in spite of provisions to that effect in deed of charge - Suit by plaintiff for enforcing charge for recovery of loan - Held, that suit related to "claims or questions arising out of this Act or any of its provisions "within Section 28 (1) and, therefore, Special Court under Section 28 alone had jurisdiction - Rights of plaintiff flowed from the Act and not from the contract, namely, deed of charge. - Sushila Kashinath Dhonde v/s Harilal Govindji Bhogani, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1495 (FB).

141. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947, S.28 , S.11 , S.49(2)(iii) - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Rules (1948) , Chap.IV , R.5 , R.6 - tenancy - Houses and Rents - Small Cause Court, at Ahmedabad exercising jurisdiction in the matter of fixation of standard rent, under Bombay Act - Municipal taxes payable by tent due and deposited into Court by order of Court - Landlord not to withdraw - Distress warrant in respect of taxes can be issued on application by landlord under S. 53 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.

1) The Court of Small Causes Ahmedabad, during the pendency of proceeding before it determining the standard rent of the premises in exercise of the power under S. 11 of the Bombay Act, has jurisdiction to issue a distress warrant under S. 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act read with R. 5 of the rules framed under S. 49 of the Bombay Act, for recovery of the amount due as municipal taxes payable by the tenant as part of rent and which has been deposited in Court.

2) By the enactment of the Ahmedabad City Courts Act, 1961, the proceedings before the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad were governed by that Act and by virtue of the amendment made in Section 28 of Bombay Act 57 of 1947 it became a Court of exclusive jurisdiction to try suits, proceedings, claims and questions arising under that Act. Being a Court governed by the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, the Ahmedabad Court of Small Causes was competent to exercise, subject to the Ahmedabad City Courts Act, all the powers which a Presidency Small Cause Court may exercise. Power to issue a distress warrant being expressly conferred by Section 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act upon the Courts governed by it, the Court of Small Causes, Ahmedabad, was competent to exercise that power.

3) Rule 5 was framed under the Bombay Act 57 of 1947 in exercise of the authority conferred by Section 49(2) (iii). After the enactment of the Ahmedabad City Courts Act, 1961 Rule 5 as originally framed by the Government of Bombay continued in force by virtue of Section 87 of the Bombay Reorganization Act 11 of 1960, and applied to the Ahmedabad Small Cause Court. When Rule 5 was framed under Bombay Act 57 of 1947 it was not ultra vires and it has also not become ultra vires after the enactment of the Ahmedabad City Courts Act in its application to the city of Ahmedabad.

4) The amount of municipal taxes was due and it was payable by he tenants and though deposited in Court in proceeding for fixation of standard rent, it could not be withdrawn by the Landlord. The municipal taxes were, therefore in arrears and a distress warrant could be applied for by the Landlord under S. 53 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. - Khemchand Dayalji v/s Mohammadbhai Chandbhai, reported in AIR 1970 SC 102 (FB). Para Nos. 7, 8 & 11.

142. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), S.29 - Appeal against order of eviction - Maintainability - Appeal by Sub-tenant - Tenants not impleaded - Appeal is defective and not maintainable on that score. - Arjun Khiamal Makhijani v/s Jamnadas Tuliani, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1599.

143. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947) (as applied to Gujarat State on 31-12-1963), S.51 , Proviso (1)(ii) and Proviso (2) - Saurashtra Rent Control Act (22 of 1951) , S.13(1)(e) and S.15 - eviction - words and phrases - Sub-letting before 1-1-1964 - Notice to terminate not given before 1-1-1964 - Suit by landlord for eviction on ground of sub-letting after 1-1-1964 - Maintainable - Whether S.51 Proviso (1)(ii) applies or (2) - 'Privilege' meaning. - Isha Valimohamad v/s Haji Gulam Mohamad and Haji Dada Trust, reported in AIR 1974 SC 2061.

1) Above referred ratio is impliedly overruled in the case of V. Dhanapal Chettiar v/s Yesodai Ammal, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1745 (Seven Judges). Wherein it is held that :- In order to get a decree or order for eviction against a tenant under any State Rent Control Act it is not necessary to give notice under Section 106 T. P. Act. Determination of a lease in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act is unnecessary and a mere surplusage because the landlord cannot get eviction of the tenant even after such determination. The tenant continues to be so even thereafter. That being so, making out a case under the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant by itself is sufficient and it is not obligatory to found the proceeding on the basis of the determination of the lease by issue of notice in accordance with Section 106 of the T. P. Act. On the question of requirement of such a notice under S.106 T. P. Act the difference in the language of various State Rent Acts does not bring about any distinction. It is not correct to say that S. 106 of the T. P. Act merely providing for termination of a lease either by the lessor or the lessee by giving the requisite notice is an extra protection against eviction. The purpose of this provision is merely to terminate the contract which the overriding Rent Acts do not permit to be terminated. Even if the lease is determined by forfeiture under the Transfer of Property Act the tenant continues to be a tenant, that is to say, there is no forfeiture in the eye of law. The tenant becomes liable to be evicted and forfeiture comes into play only if he has incurred the liability to be evicted under the State Rent Act, not otherwise.

144. Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act (57 of 1947), - Bombay Land Requisition Act (33 of 1948) - houses and rents - Houses and Rents - The two Acts are not in pari materia.
1) The Rent Act was enacted for the purpose of amending and consolidating the law relating to the control of rents and repairs of certain premises, of rates of hotels and lodging houses and of evictions. A perusal of the various provisions will clearly show that the Rent Act deals substantially, with the relationship of landlord and tenant, in the matter of eviction, payment of rent, increase of rent under certain circumstance and the circumstances under which the landlord can get possession of the property.

2) The Requisition Act was passed to provide for the requisition of land, for the continuance of requisition of land and for certain other purposes. The various provisions, in this Act, relate to the circumstances under which requisition of land can be made, for a public purpose, and the procedure to be adopted for the same, as well as the payment of compensation. It will, therefore, be seen that this Act deals with a matter, so totally different from that dealt with by the Rent Act. There is absolutely no similarity between the two enactments, and it cannot be held that the Requisition Act relates to the same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things as the Rent Act. Hence the two Acts cannot be considered to be in pari materia.

3) Section 15 of the Rent Act, cannot be read into any part of the Requisition Act, much less with S. 6 of the latter Act. Under S. 6 of the Requisition Act, notwithstanding the fact that an assignment of tenancy rights may have been made, which is permissible under the Rent Act, such an assignment can be deemed to create a vacancy of the premises, so as to give jurisdiction to the State Government to requisition the same. There is no question of the Legislature, having given something to the assignee of tenancy, under the Rent Act, by permitting an assignment, under S. 15 and taking it away by requisitioning the premises, under S. 6 of the Requisition Act. Therefore, the transfer or assignment of tenancy rights, contemplated under Expl. (a) to S. 6 of the Requisition Act cannot be understood in a limited manner. They deal with all assignments and not only prohibited assignments under the Rent Act. - M/s. Shah and Co. Bombay , Petitioner v. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1877 (Five Judges).

ISBN No: 978-81-928510-1-3
Print this Article

Comments  :  

Follow the Procedure Below To Submit Your Articles

Submit your Article by using our online form Click here
Note* we only accept Original Articles, we will not accept Articles Already Published in other websites.
For Further Details Contact: editor@legalserviceindia.com

File Your Copyright - Right Now!

Online Copyright Registration in India
Call us at: 9891244487 / or email at: admin@legalserviceindia.com