Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.N. Chandurkar, Ag. C.J.
Indravan Trivedi.... Petitioner.
Versus
Ambaben Mohanlal Soni.... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 1898 of 1979, decided on 15-9-1983.
Advocates appeared :
V.S. Gokhale with K.J. Abhyankar, for petitioner.
W.S. Devnanl, for respondent.
RENT CONTROL - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SECTION 12(3)(A) - ARREARS OF RENT - ATTORNMENT - SECTION 12(3)(B) - REGULAR DEPOSIT OF RENT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, claiming to be the owner of the suit premises, filed a suit for eviction of the defendant-tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and invoked section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act). The defendant challenged the plaintiff's ownership and claimed that he had paid rent to the plaintiff's son, Manganlal, who was the actual landlord. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove her ownership and that the case did not fall under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The plaintiff appealed, and the Appeal Bench reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover rent and that the case fell under section 12(3)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish her exclusive ownership of the suit premises and that there was no evidence of attornment by the defendant to the plaintiff. The court also held that the defendant was entitled to the protection of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act as he had made regular deposits of rent, despite some delays which were condoned by the court.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of the suit premises and entitled to recover rent from the defendant? 2. Whether the defendant had attorned to the plaintiff as a tenant? 3. Whether the defendant was entitled to the protection of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act despite some delays in depositing rent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish her exclusive ownership of the suit premises as she had not provided clear evidence of a partition between herself and her son, Manganlal, who was the actual landlord recovering rent. 2. The court held that there was no evidence of attornment by the defendant to the plaintiff as the plaintiff had not specifically pleaded or proved that the defendant had acknowledged her as the new landlord. 3. The court held that the defendant was entitled to the protection of section 12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act as he had made regular deposits of rent, despite some delays which were condoned by the court. The court interpreted the Explanation to section 12 as not giving the tenant a liberty to withhold rent and still claim the benefit of the bar under section 12(1), but rather requiring the tenant to deposit rent regularly or as ordered by the court.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the decree for eviction passed by the Appeal Bench, and restored the decree of dismissal passed by the trial court.
2. Now in the suit filed nothing has been stated about the plaintiff becoming the exclusive owner of the property, though it has transpired in the course of evidence that the plaintiff and her son Manganlal separated some time in November 1969. In the suit arrears of rent upto 31st March, 1969 amounting to Rs. 582.75 p. and a decree for possession of the suit premises were claimed.
3. In the written statement the defendant's positive case was that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. It was stated that the plaintiff claimed to be the constituted attorney of her son Manganlal and the defendant was his tenant of the suit premises and, therefore, the suit filed in the name of the plaintiff was not maintainable. The defendant called upon the plaintiff to prove her ownership of the suit premises. The validity of the notice was denied. It was denied that the defendant was not ready and willing to pay the rent. A dispute with regard to standard rent was raised. The further case of the defendant was that in January 1969 he had paid Rs. 70/- to Manganlal but Manganlal did not issue a receipt.
4. When evidence was recorded, the plaintiff came out with the case that the constructed the suit property in 1966-67. Objection was raised on behalf of the plaintiff when questions were put in cross examination with regard to her title. That objection was overruled. The plaintiff in her statement in cross-examination stated that the defendant had paid rent to her only for one or two months in the beginning of 1968 and thereafter he did not pay the rent, but she admitted that the defendant had paid rent to Manganlal for the year 1967. She later on stated that rent received by her was for April and May 1967. This statement was immediately falsified by the production of the rent receipts which were signed by Manganlal for April and May 1967. She then stated that they had separated in 1968. Further, in cross-examination she came out with the story that when the property was constructed by her she and Manganlal were the owners. She stated that the defendants had paid her rent from June 1968, but did not produce the counterfoils, though her claim was that the counterfoils were with her. The separation from Manganlal was stated to be in November 1968. A notice signed by Manganlal was produced by which the tenants of Mohanlal were said to have been intimated that they were attorned to the present plaintiff and rent, including all arrears, should be paid to her. She made a bald statement that the notice was delivered to all the tenants by hand delivery. Who had delivered the notices is not clear. Admittedly there is no signature or acknowledgement of the defendant of having received this notice. The defendant in his evidence claimed that rent for June to August 1968 was paid by him to Manganlal and that he was not a tenant of the plaintiff of
AI
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
