A rent collector is not a 'landlord' within the meaning of that expression in sections 12 and 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act LVII of 1947) and he cannot, therefore, sue for possession of premises not his own.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL ACT - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - MAINTAINABILITY - RENT COLLECTOR - WHETHER CAN FILE SUIT FOR POSSESSION - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSES RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 (BOMBAY ACT LVII OF 1947), SECS. 5(3), 12(2), 12(3)(A), 13(1)(G), 13(2) EXPLANATION CLAUSE (B).
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, claiming to be a trustee and rent collector of a public trust property, filed a suit for possession and arrears of rent against the defendant, who was a tenant. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed it, holding that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff, as a rent collector, was not entitled to sue the defendant.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that a rent collector is not a 'landlord' within the meaning of that expression in sections 12 and 13 of the Rent Act and he cannot, therefore, sue for possession of premises not his own.
Issues: 1. Whether a rent collector can file a suit for possession under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Act LVII of 1947)? 2. Whether the definition of 'landlord' in section 5(3) of the Rent Act applies to sections 12 and 13 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A rent collector is not a 'landlord' within the meaning of that expression in sections 12 and 13 of the Rent Act because: - The definition of 'landlord' in section 5(3) of the Rent Act is subject to the limitation that it does not apply where there is anything repugnant to the subject or context. - The subject and context of sections 12 and 13 of the Rent Act make it clear that the expression 'landlord' in those sections refers to the lessor in whose favor the right to possession accrues and who is otherwise entitled to recover possession under the general law of landlord and tenant. - A rent collector does not have a right to possession of the premises let to a tenant and is not entitled to recover possession under the general law of landlord and tenant. 2. The definition of 'landlord' in section 5(3) of the Rent Act does not apply to sections 12 and 13 of the Act because: - The definition is subject to the limitation that it does not apply where there is anything repugnant to the subject or context. - The subject and context of sections 12 and 13 of the Rent Act make it clear that the expression 'landlord' in those sections refers to the lessor in whose favor the right to possession accrues and who is otherwise entitled to recover possession under the general law of landlord and tenant. - A rent collector does not have a right to possession of the premises let to a tenant and is not entitled to recover possession under the general law of landlord and tenant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's petition, holding that the suit for possession was not maintainable because the plaintiff, as a rent collector, was not entitled to sue the defendant.

JUDGMENT - S.C. PRATAP, J.:---This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises a question of some importance and one frequently arising in suits under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, the Rent Act) viz.---

Can a rent collector file suit for possession?

2. The suit property is that of a public trust. Claiming to be one of its trustees as also its rent collector, the plaintiff by his own notice terminated the defendant's tenancy and demanded arrears of rent and possession. There was no reply thereto nor compliance with demand made. The plaintiff thereupon filed the instant suit for possession and arrears. The main defence was that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiff, who claimed to be one of the trustees of the suit trust and/or its rent collector, was not entitled to sue the defendant. The trial Court rejected this defence, held the suit to be maintainable and, on merits, decreed the same. In defendant's appeal therefrom the suit was held to be not maintainable. The appeal was consequently allowed, the trial Court's decree set aside and the suit dismissed. Hence this petition by the plaintiff.

3. Now, on the merits of the suit claim there was no valid answer. Rent was payable by the month; arrears were for more than six months, the demand notice under section 12(2) of the Rent Act was not complied with; and there was no dispute regarding standard rent. All the ingredients of section 12(3)(a) of the Rent Act thus stood fulfilled. In express terms thereof, therefore,

"...the Court shall pass a decree for eviction."

However, for more than one reason, such decree is not possible here.

4. Firstly, the plaintiff suing for possession of trust property was admittedly only one of the trustees, while in law all the trustees must join in such action. All co-trustees must in general, act in concurrence and jointly. It is a joint office that they hold. They constitute in the eyes of law but one collective trustee. One or some only of the trustees cannot sue for possession unless and except where the instrument of trust expressly so authorises and provides, which is not so here. Alone and by himself, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to sue the defendant for possession.

5. Contention, however, is that apart from being one of the trustees, the plaintiff was also rent collector of the trust property and was, therefore, in any event in that capacity, entitled to bring this action. This leads to the crucial question (supra) at the start of this judgment which, to reiterate, is :

Can a rent collector file suit for possession ?

Now, it may at the outset be noted that the ordinary law of landlord and tenant is the one embodied in the Transfer of Property Act. It is evident therefrom that per se a rent collector cannot be and is not a lessor nor is he one who succeeds to the interest of the lessor nor one in whom reversion of the lease can be said to vest. A rent collector basically is one who collects rent of property not his own but of some other person. Just as one otherwise not a tenant does not become so by tendering rent on behalf of some other person, likewise one otherwise not a landlord does not become so by merely accepting on behalf of some other person the tendered rent. Such mere tender of rent or its acceptance neither creates nor confers the status of tenant or landlord, as the case may be, on the person concerned. He has neither any legal nor any beneficial---not even any contingent---interest in the property of which he as a rent collector merely collects rent. He cannot be clothed with or elevated to the status of a lessor or equated therewith. The difference between the two---lessor and rent collector---is vital and fundamental. The former owns the property; not so a rent collector. The former has a transferable interest in the property not so the latter. Whereas the lessor has a heritable right, title and interest, a rent collector has nil such interest. Un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document