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

2019 Supreme(SC) 556

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph, JJ.
Nilesh Laxmichand and Another – Appellants
Versus
Shantaben Purushottam Kakad (Since Deceased) By Lrs – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4268 of 2019
Decided On : 08-05-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mayil Samy K., Mr. Nihangam R. Maurya, Mr. G. Ananda Selvam, Mr. K. Muthu Ganesa Pandian, Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Mr. Himanshu Satija, Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
When any of the grounds for eviction of tenant is established, the eviction suit has to be decreed.

Headnote:Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 16(1)(n) - Eviction on ground of non-user - The appellate court and the High Court in revision, finding ground of non-user established - Supreme Court also recording that appellants could not have used the premises in absence of any registration for the relevant period - Eviction rightly decreed. (Para 29, 31)

       Fact of the case:

       The original RAE Suit was filed by one Shantaben Purushottam Kakad for eviction of tenant-appellant from the rented premises.

       The suit was dismissed by the trial court.

       The first appellate court allowed the appeal which has been affirmed by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Order dated 24.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil Revision Application No. 29 of 2018. By the impugned Order, the Revision Application filed by the appellants challenging the Order of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in Appeal No. 19 of 2013 has been dismissed. Thereby the result is that the suit filed by the respondents for eviction of the appellants under Section 16(i)(c), 16(i)(e) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short), has been decreed against the appellants.

2. The original RAE Suit No. 1681 of 2006 was filed by one Shantaben Purushottam Kakad (the respondents in this appeal are the legal representatives of the original aforesaid plaintiff). The rented premises consisted of a shop on the ground floor of the building. The case of the plaintiff, inter alia, is as follows (parties will be referred to in the position before the Trial Court):

The first defendant took the premises on rent for the purpose of carrying out business of bookshop and he, the first defendant, has, since the inception, been carrying on the business of bookshop in the name and style “Chetna Book Store”. In about July, 2005, the first defendant suddenly closed down the business of bookstore, and since then, is not using the premises for more than six months prior to the suit, for the purpose for which it was let and that too without reasonable or any cause. It was further stated that the first defendant had sublet the premises to third party. As regards the ground of nuisance, it was stated that the defendants have started business of preparation and sale of foodstuff from the suit premises which does not have suitable layout or ventilation for the same. It is further stated that as a result, there was pollution and smell and smoke and this caused lot of nuisance and annoyance for the plaintiff an old landlady and other occupants of the building. This business is now closed down. It is further stated that the business of garments was also started and closed down and that the defendants have now given the suit premises to someone else. It is, on these allegations, the suit came to be filed.

3. A Written Statement came to be filed by the appellants. The first appellant is actually the son of the second appellant. Their case is, inter alia, as follows:

In the year 1971, the second defendant, who is the father of the first defendant, approached the original landlord, the husband of the original plaintiff, for taking the suit premises on rent. On finalisation of negotiations, the premises were taken on rent somewhere in the year 1971. At that time, the first defendant was a minor aged five years. The premises were taken for commercial/business purpose to be carried on by the second defendant but the second defendant, for certain spiritual reason and on the advice of the Astrologer, obtained receipt in the name of the first defendant. The rent receipts continued to be issued in the name of the first defendant. After obtaining the building on rent, the second defendant used the rented premises for selling books in the name and style “Chetna Book Store”. Second defendant obtained necessary licence under The Shops and Establishments Act. The second defendant was not able to get good business and sufficient earnings. He started business of readymade garments for some time. That also did not succeed. Thereafter, he started the business in the name and style “Shree Krishna Food Corner”. However, though he applied, the Health Department did not issue the licence. The business in fast food was stopped and again the business of selling books and stationery was continued. The case of sub-tenancy was denied, so also the case relating to nuisance.”

4. The Trial Court relied upon the deposition of PW1 to find that he admitted that he did not know when the tenancy was created, whether any negoti





























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