SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 1043

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Kuldip Singh and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 2412 of 1992
Decided On: 20.10.1995
Lilawati H. Hiranandani Appellants
Vs.
Usha Tandon Respondent

Advocates:
HARISH N.SLAVE, PRABIR ANAND CHAUDHARY, SANGITA KUMAR, SHANKAR GOPAL PAGIRE, VIJAY VERMA

Headnote:

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 - Section 41 and 42A- Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 – Rent control and Eviction - Tenant - Procedure where occupant contests as a lawful tenant, etc - Original applicant in said Ejectment Application- petitioner in writ petition (hereinafter referred to as original applicant), is the respondent in this appeal - Matter arises in connection with eviction of original respondent from the premises, comprised in flat Block Mazgaon Terrace - One Sri Syed Abdul Hamid Kadri was owner of entire building - Original applicant was a tenant under Shri Kadri long before 1965 - Property was mortgaged to a trust - Original applicant gave a licence over a portion of flat in her possession to original respondent - By notice licence was terminated - On 29-11-1966, the ejectment application was filed under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as Act) - Held, It is true that said plea was not considered. We informed Counsel that since this matter is pending for nearly 30 years, we will ourselves consider matter - Plea was that appellant (the original respondent) is a tenant under the Rent Control Act and not a licencee and, so matter requires investigation and adjudication - They chose to call arrangement as a "licence". Permission was sought to occupy a part of flat and it was given - In our opinion, specific label or nomenclature of arrangement and contents of communication, should conclude matter - It is idle for appellant to contend that she is entitled to protection of Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 as a tenant. We are of view that plea based on Section 42A of Act is without substance and we repel same - Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

Paripoornan, J.

1. The original respondent in Ejectment Application No. 149/929/E of 1966 in the Court of Small Cause at Bombay - respondent in writ petition No. 1823/83 (hereinafter referred to as the original respondent), is the appellant in this appeal. The original applicant in the said Ejectment Application- petitioner in writ petition No. 1823/83 (hereinafter referred to as the original applicant), is the respondent in this appeal. The matter arises in connection with the eviction of the original respondent from the premises, comprised in flat No. 36, Block No. 30-C, 27-A, Mazgaon Terrace. One Sri Syed Abdul Hamid Kadri was the owner of the entire building. The original applicant was a tenant under Shri Kadri long before 1965. The property was mortgaged to a trust. Pursuant to some litigation, the property was put up for auction on 6-10-1965. Prior to this auction, on 14-8-1965, the tenants of the flat formed a Society called Mazgaon Terrace Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The entire building in question was purchased by the society. The original applicant became a member of the society on 26-9-1965. It is stated the flat covered by the ejectment application was allotted to the original applicant.

2. The original applicant gave a licence over a portion of the flat in her possession to the original respondent. By notice dated 3-8-1966, the licence was terminated. On 29-11-1966, the ejectment application was filed under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the said proceedings, the original respondent claimed the benefit of Section 42-A -- the right of tenancy. The Court repelled the said plea by order dated 17-8-1973. The appeal filed from the aforesaid order, was dismissed on 18-10-1977. Thereafter, the original respondent raised an objection under Section 43 of the Act, contending that the applicant is not entitled to file the application under Section 41 of the Act. By order dated 17-7-1978, The Court of Small Causes, Bombay rejected the said plea relying on its earlier order dated 17-8-1973 passed under Section 42A of the Act. The original respondent filed special civil application No. 2268/78 before the Bombay High Court and assailed the orders passed under Section 42A as well as under Section 43 of the Act. Masodkar, J., by judgment dated 6th of October, 1982 ordered a remit of the matter, for a fresh consideration. The learned Judge held that the plea of the original respondent under Section 43 of the Act should be considered afresh and in case of rejection of the said defence, it is open to the original respondent to challenge the orders made under Section 42A of the Act. Thereafter, the trial Court passed the order dated 24-1-1983 holding that the application filed under Section 41 of the Act by the applicant is not maintainable since the initial title of the applicant as a tenant has come to an end. The original applicant filed writ petition No. 1823/83 before the High Court of Bombay and assailed the order of the trial Court dated 21-4-1983. By the judgment under appeal dated 28-11-1991, the learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the Small Cause Court dated 21-4-1983 and allowed the application filed by the original applicant. The original respondent after having obtained special leave in Special Leave petition (Civil) No. 5509 of 1992, has filed this civil appeal.

3. We heard counsel. Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, raised two contentions. They are: (i) the original applicant has given a licence to the original respondent while she was a tenant of Sri Kadri and when she became a tenant member of the Society, her old status came to an end, and so, she is disqualified under Section 43 of the Act for obtaining a decree from the Court, and (ii) by the judgment in Special Civil Application No. 2268/78 dated 6-10-1982 the Court had directed that in case the plea of the ori


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top