The court held that the appellate bench erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the applicability of Section 13 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which requires the court to consider the hardship to both the landlord and the tenant in eviction suits.

Headnote:
BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SECTION 13 (1) (G), 13 (2), 11 (4), 12 (1), 12 (3) (A), 12 (3) (B), 25 - BOMBAY PUBLIC TRUSTS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 11 - TRUSTEES OF A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST - SUIT FOR EVICTION - APPLICATION OF SECTION 13 (2) - CONSIDERATION OF HARDSHIP - REVERSAL OF TRIAL COURT'S FINDING - LEGALITY - REQUIREMENT OF PREMISES FOR TRUST PURPOSES - MEANING OF "RESIDENCE" - SECTION 25 - "NON-RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE" - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 13 (1) (G) - REQUIREMENT OF TRUSTEES - REASONABLENESS AND BONA FIDES - SECTION 11 (4) - ORDER FOR DEPOSIT OF RENT - NON-COMPLIANCE - STRIKE OFF OF DEFENCES - JURISDICTION - SECTION 12 (3) (B) - COMPLIANCE - DISMISSAL OF SUIT - LIBERTY TO RESORT TO OTHER REMEDIES.
Fact of the Case:

The trustees of a public charitable trust filed three suits for eviction against tenants occupying premises owned by the trust. The trial court decreed the suits, but the appellate bench of the Small Causes Court reversed the decision, holding that the tenants would suffer greater hardship if evicted. The trustees challenged the appellate bench's decision in three special civil applications.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the appellate bench erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the applicability of Section 13 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which requires the court to consider the hardship to both the landlord and the tenant in eviction suits. The court found that the appellate bench failed to consider the hardship to the trustees and the effect of refusing to pass a decree in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellate bench erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the applicability of Section 13 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947? 2. Whether the appellate bench erred in holding that the tenants would suffer greater hardship if evicted? 3. Whether the trustees satisfied the requirement of Section 13 (1) (g) of the Act? 4. Whether the appellate bench erred in striking off the tenants' defences for non-compliance with an order for deposit of rent under Section 11 (4) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellate bench erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the applicability of Section 13 (2) of the Act because the appellate bench failed to consider the hardship to the trustees and the effect of refusing to pass a decree in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The court held that the appellate bench erred in holding that the tenants would suffer greater hardship if evicted because the appellate bench misdirected itself on the law, illegally ignored the reasons given by the trial judge, and erroneously reversed the correct findings of the trial court under Section 13 (2). 3. The court held that the trustees satisfied the requirement of Section 13 (1) (g) of the Act because they established that there was a requirement importing an element of necessity which compelled them to file a suit for eviction. 4. The court held that the appellate bench erred in striking off the tenants' defences for non-compliance with an order for deposit of rent under Section 11 (4) of the Act because the section does not authorize the court to strike the defences straightway and the court acted without jurisdiction in doing so.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the decree passed by the appellate bench and restored the decree passed by the trial court, subject to modifications. The court also directed the tenants to pay the costs of the trustees in the special civil application.

JUDGMENT - 1. These three Special Civil Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed by the Trustees of a Public Charitable Trust known as "Manikram Menghraj Trust." It is trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. The trustees filed three suits. R.A.E. Suit No. 4497 of 1963, R. A. E. Suit No. 782/6191 of 1963 against respective tenants who are the respective respondents in the three petitions. The suits were decreed by the trial Court and the decrees for eviction under Section 13 (1) (g) read with Section 13 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, in all the three suits were set aside in the three appeals filed by the respective tenants before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes on the ground that greater hardship would be caused to the tenants if a decree for eviction is passed. The said decision of the Small Causes Court is challenged in all the above petitions; and the principal question which arises for determination in these three petitions is as to whether the Appellate, Bench was right whether the Appellate Bench was right in refusing to pass a decree in the facts and circumstances of the case on the ground that no other suitable accommodation was available for the tenants in the city of Bombay.

2. In R. A. E. Suit No. 782/6191 of 1963, in which Special Civil Application No. 2185 of 1969 is filed, the allegations made by the trustees in the plaint may be briefly stated as under : That (the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Hansraj admittedly died during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Bench). The trustees claimed the suit property at 2. Chowpatty Road, Bombay, bearing C. S. No. 423 of Malabar Hill and Cumbala Hill Division. The defendant Hansraj was the monthly tenant in respect of the premises on the first floor of the main building standing on the said property.

3. By an order made by the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, in Charity Application No.1 19 of 1957 on July 1, 1957, directions were given to the trustees for utilizing a sum of Rupees one lac and fifty thousand out of the trust fund for purchasing a plot of land and for constructing thereon a marriage hall somewhere in the suburbs of Bombay to commemorate the memory of the executor of the will, Nanikram Neghraj, as mentioned in the said will. It was also ordered that ***** thousand and Rupees two lacs and twenty five thousand should be applied cy press for construction and maintenance of a Tuberculosis Clinic in Bombay. By another order dated May 1, 1959, made by the Bombay City Civil Court, Bombay, In Charity Application No. 18 of 1959, the trustees were given liberty to set up a marriage hall on the said premises purchased by the plaintiffs at 2. Chowpatty Road, instead of in the suburbs of Bombay and also to establish a clinic of all clinical examinations and a maternity hospital, nursing home, mobile hospital and garages for mobile vans, doctors cars, servants quarters and other necessary structures. The trustees were also authorised by the said order to take all steps to eject the tenants in the premises at 2, Chowpatty Road and demolish the structures on the plot and to construct thereon a marriage hall, a clinic, maternity and nursing home and a charitable hospital including equipment and office premises, garages for mobile vans, doctors cars, servants quarters and other necessary structures and to expend for the said purpose a sum of Rupees four lacs and forty-five thousand.

4. The trustees thereafter informed the defendant Hansraj that if he agreed to vacate the suit premises, there were prepared to purchase on ownership basis suitable premises for a value not exceeding Rs.50,000/- which premises the plaintiffs were prepared to let to the defendants on standard rent. Even in the plaint it was alleged that the trustees were ready and willing to abide by that offer. On August 25, 1962, the trustees through their attor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(Bom) 32

The court held that the appellate bench erred in reversing the trial court's finding on the applicability of Section 13 (2) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, which requires the court to consider the hardship to both the landlord and the tenant in eviction suits.

Cases Referred (1)