Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Baitulla Ismail Shaikh and Anr. – Appellants
VERSUS
Khatija Ismail Panhalkar And Ors. – RESPONDENTS
Civil appeal No. 1543 of 2016 With Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 2016
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Sections 15 and 16 – Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 – Section 195 – Eviction of tenant – Invalidation of eviction decrees by Revisional Court – Appellate Court sustained judgment and decree on the ground of bonafide need as also necessity to effect demolition of subject-building – In addition, it overturned Trial Court’s finding on there being no default in payment of rent on the ground that provisions of Section 15(3) of 1999 Act could not support tenant’s case – Revisional Court examining question of reasonable and bona fide requirement of landlords found eviction was sought for demolishing suit premises and erecting a new building thereon – Omission to label a notice with provision under which it is issued would not make it nugatory, if substance thereof is clearly conveyed – Court trying an eviction proceeding under the provision has very limited role in determining as to whether demolition is really necessary or not, but it does not automatically follow therefrom that Court would mechanically adopt view of municipal authority of there being urgent need of demolition – Revisional Court was examining a judgment and decree already tested by Appellate Forum and on facts, decree was made – Ordinarily, Revisional Court ought not to interfere with findings on fact – But in judgment under appeal, Revisional Court has fitted the facts with legal provisions and found that there was mismatch on the basis of which judgment and decree were set aside – Judgment of Revisional Court do not need any re-appreciation and upheld. (Paras 7,11, 14, 17 and 18)
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.
The appellants before us are landlords and they assail a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court on 04.08.2015 exercising his revisional jurisdiction invalidating eviction decrees against two tenants in respect of two portions of the same building. The building in question carries House No.86 as per the municipal records, comprised in C.S. No. 111/b as per city survey records, located at Dr. Sobane Road in Mahabaleshwar, District-Satara within the State of Maharashtra. The Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 2016 arises out of Civil Suit No. 136 of 2010 and the tenant/defendant in that suit is one Khatija Ismail Panhalkar. In this suit, two of his sons have also been impleaded as defendants. The premises involved in these proceedings comprise of two blocks within the aforesaid building. One block comprises of 10’×4’ structure made of ‘ita and tin shed’. Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 2016 arises out of Civil Suit No. 137 of 2010 and the tenant whose eviction is sought for in this suit is one Vasant Mahadeo Gujar (since deceased). Before us, his legal representatives have contested the appeal. The property from which the appellants want them to be evicted comprises of two rooms comprising of an area of 10’×12’, which appears to be located in the middle of the said building. The two rooms, at the material point of time, were being used for residential purpose. The appellants purchased the subject-premises in the year 1992 from its erstwhile owner. Both the tenants were inducted by the erstwhile owner of the building in question.
2. On 23.01.2002, a demolition notice was issued by the Mahabaleshwar Giristhan Municipal Council for a part of the subject-building. This notice constituted one of the grounds on which the appellants wanted to evict the respondents under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“the 1999 Act”). This notice was followed by three subsequent notices by the said Municipal Council on 03.12.2005, 13.07.2009 and 05.07.2010, almost on similar terms. The suit, however, was founded on, inter-alia, the notice dated 23.01.2002. This notice is of relevance so far as these appeals are concerned and we quote below the text thereof:-
| “ANNEXURE P- 1 | |
| MAHABALESHWAR GIRISTHAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MAHABALESHWAR, DIST. SATARA- 412806 | |
| Municipal office no. 60220 | Chief officer no. 60673 |
| President office no. 60232 60671 | Chief officer res. No |
| V.S. NO. 15/527 | Date; 23-1-2002 |
| Notice | |
| You are do hereby informed that on inspection of the property comprised in C.S. no. 111-b, house no. 86- b situated within the municipal council, as on today that is 22-1-2002 it is found that the wall from the eastern side is swollen and there are cracks. It is also found that the wooden pillars, wood is damaged and ceiling also has turned out of shape. Due to this the danger to the house is apprehended. There is risk to the persons residing in the house as well as the persons coming and going. At anytime thre is possibility of collapsing the said dangerous building due to which there is possibility of fatalities and the financial loss. Hence vide this notice it is to inform you to demolish the said dangerous portion immediately on receipt of this notice otherwise if any fatality occurs or the financial loss occurs due to the said house then municipal council will not be responsible and the entire responsibility will lie in your part. And please note the same. | |
| Sd/- Chief officer Mahabaleshwar Giristhan Municipal council | |
| To, Baitulla lsmail sheikh and C.K. Aris. Vasant Mahadev Gujar Khatija lsmail Panhalkar” | |
3. Notices for eviction were subsequently sent to the tenants in each appeal and both these notices are dated 04.02.2002. So far as the notice to the respondents in Civil Appeal No. 1543 of 2016 is concerned, the delivery of vacant possession was asked for on five main grounds. The first one was default in pay
Omission to label a notice with provision under which it is issued would not make it nugatory, if substance thereof is clearly conveyed.
A landlord seeking eviction for demolition and reconstruction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act must comply with specific statutory requirements, including providing equivalent carpet area to th....
The Court emphasized the statutory duty of the Court to make an enquiry into the extent of the landlord's need and the possibility of partial eviction, even if the bonafide need is found to be reason....
Tenancy subsists post-building demolition under rent laws as demise includes land; bona fide eviction need assessed at suit filing survives unless subsequent events completely eclipse it; non-user pr....
The landlord's assessment of personal necessity is paramount, and courts should not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
