The proviso to Section 50 of the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 enlarged the scope of the benefit enjoyed by the tenants under the repealed Act, Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944, by conferring the benefit of the provisions of the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 on tenants of business premises who would otherwise have not been entitled to the same.

Headnote:
LANDLORD AND TENANT - BOMBAY ACT LVII [57] OF 1947 - SECTION 50 - PROVISO - APPLICABILITY - SUIT FOR POSSESSION OF BUSINESS PREMISES - BOMBAY ACT VII [7] OF 1944 - SECTION 6 - APPLICABILITY - ISSUE OF REASONABLE AND BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES BY LANDLORD - REMAND FOR FINDING.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, the owner of a house consisting of business premises, filed a suit for possession of one-third of the house in the actual possession of the defendant, who continued to occupy the premises after the expiration of the lease period. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 applied and that the plaintiff did not require the premises for his own use and occupation. The lower appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944 applied and that the defendant was not entitled to the protection of the Act.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 applied to the suit and that the lower appellate court erred in holding that the Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944 applied. The court further held that the lower appellate court failed to consider the issue of whether the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation, and remanded the matter to the lower appellate court for a finding on this issue.
Issues: 1. Whether the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 or the Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944 applied to the suit. 2. Whether the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proviso to Section 50 of the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 applied to all suits which were pending at the time when it came into operation and which were in regard to premises inclusive of business premises, thereby enlarging the scope of the benefit enjoyed by the tenants under the repealed Act, Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944. 2. The main provisions of Section 60 of the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947, which was merely a repealing section, did not fetter, limit, or control the explicit or specific provisions contained in the proviso to Section 60.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the decree passed by the lower appellate court was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate court for a finding on the issue of whether the plaintiff required the suit premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation.

Judgment

Bhagwati, J.

1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the learned Asst. Judge, Jalgaon, allowing the appeal against the decision of the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Jalgaon.

2. The pltf. is the owner of a house bearing City Survey No. 1991 which consisted of business premises. A lease for a period of about five years expiring on 4-11-1945, was granted by the pltf. to the deft. The deft. however, continued in possession of the suit premises even after the expiration of the period of the lease. A two-thirds portion of the suit premises had been requisitioned by the Govt. a one-third portion was in the possession of the deft. On 18-6-1946, the pltf. filed a suit for possession of the suit premises consisting of one-third of the house in the actual possession of the deft. basing his claim for possession on the ground that he required the suit premises for his own use occupation. This claim of the pltf. was resisted by the deft. who contended that the pltf. did not require the premises for his own use occupation. The trial Ct. held that the Bombay Act LVII [57] of 1947 which came into operation from 13-2-1948 applied but that the suit premises were not required by the pltf. reasonably bona fide for his own use occupation therefore dismissed the pltfs. suit on 19-4-1948. The pltf. filed an appeal from this decision of the learned trial Judge. The lower appellate Ct. came to the conclusion that the Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944 was applicable, that the same did not apply to business premises that therefore the deft. was not entitled to the protection of the Act. Under the circumstances the lower appellate Ct. does not appear to have considered the question whether the pltf. required the suit premises reasonably bona fide for his own use occupation proceeding on the basis that the deft. was not entitled to the protection of the Bombay Act VII [7] of 1944 decreed the pltfs. claim ordered the deft. to hand over possession of the suit premises to the pltf. This second appeal was filed by the deft. from that decision of the lower appellate Ct.

3. Before we proceed to deal with the main question that has been canvassed before us in this appeal we might as well dispose of two minor points which were urged before us by Mr. R. B. Kotwal for the applt. viz. (1) whether the Govt. which had requisitioned two-thirds of the suit premises were necessary parties to the suit (2) whether a suit could lie for possession only of a one-third part of the salt property which had been the subject-matter of the original lease.

4. In regard to the first point, it is obvious that there is no privity of estate established between the pltf. the Govt. by reason of the requisition of the two-thirds part of the suit premises. The effect of an order of requisition is that so far as the tenant is concerned the tenancy rights in respect of the part of the premises which are the subject-matter of the requisition order vest in the Govt. That does not mean that the Govt. become sub-tenants of the original tenant or are brought into direct relationship with the landlord as landlord tenant. If the former were the true position, even then it would not be necessary to implead the sub-tenant as a party-deft. to the suit which the landlord files for eviction of the tenant. If the latter were the true position, the landlord not seeking to evict the Govt. from the portion of the premises in their use occupation under the terms of the requisition order, there would be absolutely no necessity of making the Govt. party defts. to this suit.

5. In regard to the second point, it may be observed that the right which the landlord has on the termination of the lease is to have delivery of the possession, given over by the tenant to him that is the right which the landlord seeks to exercise when he files a suit for ejectment against the tenant on the termination of the tenancy. It may be that the tenant for certain reasons is n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis