Back
1972 Supreme(Bom) 58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vaidya G.N., J.
Appellants: Vasant Ramchandra Sharma
Vs.
Respondent: Narayanibai Mulchand Agrawal and Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 1821 of 1968 (with C. A. 939 of 1972 with Spl. C. As. Nos. 1839 and 1940 of 1968) Decided On: 20.04.1972
Counsels:
U.R. Lalit, R.B. Kotwal, Raghvendra A. Jahagirdar and G.L. Damle, Advs. and L.V. Talavalikar, Adv. for Y.S. Chitale, Adv.
A statutory tenant has no right to sublet the suit plot in contravention of Section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and such subletting amounts to an unlawful transfer of interest under Section 13 (1) (e) of the Act.
Headnote:
BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SECTION 12 (3) (A), 13 (1) (E), 15 - STANDARD RENT - DISPUTE - NOTICE - EVICTION - SUBLETTING - LICENSE - COMPENSATION - INTERPRETATION OF LEASE DEED - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 116.
Fact of the Case:
1. Defendant No.1, a statutory tenant, failed to pay rent for more than six months and sublet portions of the suit plot to defendants Nos. 2, 9, 13 and 17 after January 1, 1962, in contravention of Section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 2. The trial court passed a decree for actual possession against defendant No.1 and symbolical possession against defendants Nos. 2 to 17, while the appellate court set aside the decree and directed defendant No.1 to remove his structures and all defendants to hand over possession of the suit plot to the plaintiffs. 3. Defendant No.1 challenged the appellate court's decision, arguing that the provisions of Section 12 (3) (a) were not applicable as the dispute about standard rent was bona fide and all arrears had been paid, that he continued as a contractual tenant with the right to sublet, and that the subletting to defendants Nos. 2, 9, 13 and 17 did not amount to an unlawful transfer of interest under Section 13 (1) (e).
Finding of the Court:
1. The provisions of Section 12 (3) (a) were not applicable as the dispute about standard rent was bona fide and all arrears had been paid. 2. Defendant No.1 became a statutory tenant from January 1, 1962, and had no right to sublet the suit plot to defendants Nos. 2, 9, 13 and 17 after January 1, 1962, in contravention of Section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 3. The subletting to defendants Nos. 2, 9, 13 and 17 amounted to an unlawful transfer of interest under Section 13 (1) (e) as it was a transfer or assignment "in any other manner" of defendant No.1's interest in the plot. 4. Defendant No.1 was not entitled to compensation for the structure built by him as the decree for eviction was passed under Section 13 (1) (e), which does not provide for compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 12 (3) (a) were applicable in the case. 2. Whether defendant No.1 continued as a contractual tenant with the right to sublet. 3. Whether the subletting to defendants Nos. 2, 9, 13 and 17 amounted to an unlawful transfer of interest under Section 13 (1) (e). 4. Whether defendant No.1 was entitled to compensation for the structure built by him.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 12 (3) (a) are not applicable where there is a bona fide dispute about standard rent and all arrears have been paid. 2. A statutory tenant has no right to sublet the suit plot in contravention of Section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 3. Subletting to defendants Nos. 2, 9, 13 and 17 amounted to an unlawful transfer of interest under Section 13 (1) (e) as it was a transfer or assignment "in any other manner" of defendant No.1's interest in the plot. 4. A statutory tenant is not entitled to compensation for the structure built by him if the decree for eviction is passed under Section 13 (1) (e), which does not provide for compensation.
Final Decision: The decree passed by the appellate court was confirmed, and the rule in each of the three petitions was discharged with costs.
2. The relevant facts may be briefly stated as follows : There is in Polan Peth in Jalgaon a plot of land having City Survey nos. 1862. Out of the said plot, an area measuring 117 1/2 feet east-west and 150 feet north-south is the subject-matter of the dispute between the parties to these petitions. The said area, which will be hereinafter referred to as "the suit plot", is owned by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. The plaintiffs are respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in each of these petitions. Defendant No.1, in each of these petitions. Defendant No.1, who is the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1821 of 1968 and respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1839 of 1968 and 1840 of 1968 and respondent No. 4 in Special Civil Applications Nos. 1839 of 1968 and 1840 of 1968, was the tenant of the suit plot. Defendants Nos. 2 to 17 in the original suit were impleaded in the suit as persons to whom the various structures built by defendant No.1 were let by him and who claim to be lawful sub-tenant of defendant No.1 even in respect of the suit plot. Although a decree for eviction is passed against all the defendants, defendant No.1 alone has filed the above Special Civil Application No. 1821 of 1968 challenging the said decision; defendant No.2 has filed Special Civil Application No. 1839 of 1968; and defendant No. 4 and heirs of defendant No. 7 have filed Special Civil Application no. 1840 of 1968.
3. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for evicting all the said defendants Nos. 1 to 17 on the ground that defendant No.1 was their statutory tenant; that the standard rent of the premises was fixed at Rs. 95/- per month under a compromise decree in regular Civil Suit No. 416 of 1962 filed earlier by them; that defendant No. 1 failed and neglected to pay to the plaintiffs rent from September 1, 1962 to October 31, 1965: that the plaintiffs gave notice to defendant No.1 dated October 5, 1965 and terminated his tenancy under Section 12 (2); that a copy of the said notice was also sent to defendants Nos. 2 to 17 for information; that though the notice was duly served on the tenant-defendant No.1, possession of the suit plot was not delivered to the plaintiffs and arrears of rent were not paid to them and hence they filed the suit to recover possession. In the suit possession was claimed under Section 12 (3) (a) and also on the ground that defendant No.1 had let out portions of the suit plot to defendants Nos. 2, 9, 13 and 17 illegally and without their consent after January 1, 1962.
4. All the defendants resisted the suit. Defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing a written statement at Exh. 52. He admitted the tenancy of the suit plot. He contended that he was in possession under the registered lease-deed from January 1, 1952, and that he was not a statutory tenant as contended by the plaintiffs. He stated that his (defendant No. 1s) father had originally taken the lease of the plot in 1921 from the original landlord Balmukund Choturam, the predecessor of the plaintiffs; that the tenancy agreement or rent-note was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Mulchand Gulabchand, the last predecessor of the plaintiffs on November 29, 1950, and under that rent-note a tenancy was created for eleven years in respect of the suit plot and defendant No.1 was given the right to build structure and to take sub-tenants in the said structures. It was also agreed that if after the expiry of the period defendant No.1 was required to vacate he should be paid the full value of the building. He contended that the rent of the premises was increased from time to time and on the expiry of the period of agreement the legal heirs of Mulchand Gulabchand filed Regular Suit No. 416 of 1962 against defendant No.1 to recover the arrears of
