A monthly tenancy is a tenancy for an indefinite period determinable only by a notice to quit.

Headnote:
BOMBAY RENT ACT - APPLICABILITY - EXEMPTION - BUILDING BELONGING TO LOCAL AUTHORITY - SUB-LEASE - VALIDITY - NOTICE TO QUIT - NECESSITY - MONTHLY TENANCY - DETERMINATION.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff-firm, M/s. Megji Vijpar and Co., was a tenant of Bay No. 4 in Fully Compartment 'I' i.e. godown No. 4, which is situated at Rayon Grain Market at Dana Bunder. The dispute relates to Gala No. 4 in the said godown. The defendants were in occupation of this godown No. 4 under written agreement from time to time, which was every time for one year commencing from Kartak Shudh 1 to Asho Vad 30 according to Samvat calendar. The plaintiff-firm served a notice on 13th January, 1972, as efforts to obtain possession of the premises after expiry of the term were unsuccessful. The defendants replied to the notice on 14th, January, 1972 and raised a contention that they were not liable to handover possession of the premises after the expiry of period on 19th October, 1971 and contended that they were lawful sub-tenants of the plaintiff-firm. The plaintiff-firm by its letter dated 3rd February, 1972 accepted 'the defendant's sub-tenancy' and contended that the subtenancy even if it existed is terminated firstly by efflux of time and alternatively by a notice to quit on 13th January, 1972. The plaintiff also stated that the allegation of the defendants that they were in possession since 1957 is false. The provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act') did not apply to the tenancy of the premises and that the suit was filed on the basis that the defendants were monthly tenants, in respect of the premises whose tenancy has been duly and lawfully terminated.
Finding of the Court:

1. The premises in question, being a building belonging to the Port Trust, were exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act in terms of section 4(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. 2. Section 4(4)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act exempts buildings which are entitled to a particular qualification. That qualification was that the building must have been erected under an agreement, lease or grant, and must have been erected on such land held by a person from the local authority or the Government as the case may be under and agreement, lease or grant. 3. In the present case no such evidence has been led and there is nothing to show that the parties have joined issue on the question as to whether the present building qualified for the purpose of exemption under section 4(4)(a). 4. The defendants' tenancy must be held to be a monthly tenancy in the present case, which had commenced in 1957 and cannot be for a fixed period. 5. A monthly tenancy does not expire as said at the end of any term and as I have pointed from the above decision in Utility Article's case and Ram Kumar Das, case to be a tenancy for an indefinite period determinable only be a notice to quit.
Issues: 1. Whether the premises in question were exempted from the operation of the Bombay Rent Act? 2. Whether section 4(4)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act exempts buildings which are entitled to a particular qualification? 3. Whether in the present case such evidence has been led and there is nothing to show that the parties have joined issue on the question as to whether the present building qualified for the purpose of exemption under section 4(4)(a)? 4. Whether the defendants' tenancy must be held to be a monthly tenancy in the present case, which had commenced in 1957 and cannot be for a fixed period? 5. Whether a monthly tenancy does not expire as said at the end of any term and as I have pointed from the above decision in Utility Article's case and Ram Kumar Das, case to be a tenancy for an indefinite period determinable only be a notice to quit?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Bombay Rent Act does not apply to the premises in question, as they are exempted under section 4(1) of the Act. 2. Section 4(4)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act exempts buildings which are entitled to a particular qualification, namely, that they must have been erected under an agreement, lease or grant, and must have been erected on such land held by a person from the local authority or the Government as the case may be under and agreement, lease or grant. 3. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that the parties have joined issue on the question as to whether the present building qualified for the purpose of exemption under section 4(4)(a). 4. The defendants' tenancy must be held to be a monthly tenancy in the present case, which had commenced in 1957 and cannot be for a fixed period. 5. A monthly tenancy does not expire at the end of any term and is a tenancy for an indefinite period determinable only by a notice to quit.
Final Decision: Writ and R and P be sent to the City Civil Court for recording a finding on the question as to who were lessors of the defendants whose monthly tenancy commenced in the year 1957 and whether that tenancy is legally and validly determined. The findings to be certified within a period of three months.

JUDGMENT - R.D. TULPULE, J.:---This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Judge, City Civil Court in S.C. Suit No. 8109 of 1972. The suit and the appeal which would ordinarily appear to be raising a simple controversy as between a landlord and tenant has assumed considerable proportion and magnitude.

2. The appellants are the original defendants---M/s. Nagji Vallabhji and Co. The first plaintiff is a firm "M/s. Megji Vijpar and Co., which was a tenant of Bay No. 4 in Fully Compartment" 'I' i.e. godown No. 4, which is situated at Rayon Grain Market at Dana Bunder. The dispute relates to Gala No. 4 in the said godown.

3. Stated briefly the case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff firm which was initially only M/s. Meghji Vijpar and Co. alone were the tenants of the said premises, having taken the premises from the trustees of the Port of Bombay. That the defendants for some years in the part were in occupation of this godown No. 4 under written agreement from time to time, which was every time for one year commencing from Kartak Shudh 1 to Asho Vad 30 according to Samvat calendar. Last such agreement was executed on 7th November, 1970 and was to expire on 19th October, 1971, having commenced from 31st October, 1970 equivalent to Samvat year 2027.

4. As the plaintiff firm did not wish the defendant to continue in the occupation of the premises, they served a native through their Advocate on 13th January, 1972, as efforts to obtain possession of the premises after expiry of the term were unsuccessful. That notice, the defendant replied to on 14th, January, 1972 and raised a contention that they were not liable to handover possession of the premises after the expiry of period on 19th October, 1971 and contended that they were lawful sub-tenants of the plaintiff-firm. In order to avoid controversy, the plaintiff-firm by its letter dated 3rd February, 1972 accepted "the defendant's sub-tenancy" and contended that the subtenancy even if it existed is terminated firstly by efflux of time and alternatively by a notice to quit on 13th January, 1972. The plaintiff then proceeded to say that for the purpose of the suit "the plaintiffs unconditionally admit that the defendants were the monthly sub-tenants of the plaintiffs prior to the expiry of the period mentioned in the said writing dated 7th November, 1970", and that no notice was necessary and even if notice was necessary the said sub-tenancy was terminated by a notice issued on 13th January, 1972. The plaintiff also stated that the allegation of the defendants that they were in possession since 1957 is false. The provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bombay Rent Act') did not apply to the tenancy of the premises and that the suit was filed on the basis that the defendants were monthly tenants, in respect of the premises whose tenancy has been duly and lawfully terminated. The plaintiffs once again repeated that the said monthly tenancy came to an end on Asho Vad 30th of S.Y. 2027 and also by the notice given by them on 13th January, 1972. There were other claims also such as relating to the rent etc., which for the purpose of this appeal are not relevant.

5. The plaintiffs relied upon the correspondence which passed between the parties prior to the suit and the last writing dated 7th November, 1970. It would be convenient firstly to refer to the notice dated 13th January, 1972 and the reply dated 14th January, 1972. The contention taken by the plaintiffs in their notice dated 13th January, 1972 was that the defendants were allowed under an agreement the use and occupation of the premises for Samvat year 2027 in writing and that possession was not handed over wrongfully. In their reply the defendants stated that they were "in exclusive use, enjoyment and possession of the said Gala No. 4 as lawful sub-tenants of your clients from 1957". This notice is addressed by the Advocate on behalf of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document