An unincorporated association is not capable of becoming a tenant, but its members can individually or jointly become tenants. The acceptance of rent by a landlord from a person enjoying possession of premises creates a tenancy from month to month. Licensees who are in possession of premises on 1st February, 1973, are protected under section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, and are deemed to be tenants.

Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - BOMBAY RENTS, HOTEL AND LODGING HOUSE RATES CONTROL ACT, 1947 - SECTION 28 - JURISDICTION - TENANCY - UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION - CAPACITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT - JOINT TENANCY - ACCEPTANCE OF RENT - CREATION OF TENANCY - LICENSEES DEEMED TENANTS - SECTION 15-A - PROTECTION - STATUS QUO.
Fact of the Case:

The Bombay Zionist Association, an unregistered body, had been paying rent for a portion of the second floor of a building since 1921. The plaintiffs, who became the owners of the building in 1950, continued to accept rent from the Association and issued rent receipts in its name. In 1964, the plaintiffs served a notice to quit on the Association, which was challenged by the Association in the Court of Small Causes. The suit was eventually withdrawn by the plaintiffs. In 1974, the plaintiffs filed a suit in the High Court for a declaration that the Association and its members had no right, title, or interest in the suit premises and for recovery of possession. The defendant No. 1, representing the Association, contested the suit, arguing that the Court of Small Causes had exclusive jurisdiction under section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the suit was not maintainable in the High Court because the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, applied to the case. The Court found that the Association, being an unregistered body, was not capable of becoming a tenant. However, the Court held that the members of the Association could individually or jointly become tenants of the premises. The Court also held that the acceptance of rent by the plaintiffs from the Association created a tenancy from month to month. The Court further held that the members of the Association were protected licensees under section 15-A of the Act and were deemed to be tenants. The Court dismissed the suit and directed the parties to maintain status quo for eight weeks.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit was maintainable in the High Court or the Court of Small Causes had exclusive jurisdiction under section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. 2. Whether an unincorporated association could become a tenant. 3. Whether the members of the Association could individually or jointly become tenants of the premises. 4. Whether the acceptance of rent by the plaintiffs from the Association created a tenancy from month to month. 5. Whether the members of the Association were protected licensees under section 15-A of the Act and were deemed to be tenants.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes to entertain suits or proceedings between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of premises to which the provisions of the Act apply. 2. An unincorporated association, not being a legal entity, is not capable of becoming a tenant. 3. The members of an unincorporated association can individually or jointly become tenants of premises. 4. The acceptance of rent by a landlord from a person enjoying possession of premises creates a tenancy from month to month. 5. Licensees who are in possession of premises on 1st February, 1973, are protected under section 15-A of the Act and are deemed to be tenants.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and dismissed the suit. The Court directed the parties to maintain status quo for eight weeks.

JUDGMENT - C. MOOKERJEE, C.J.: --- This appeal is by M.J. Talegaonkar, defendant No. 1, who was described in the plaint of the Suit No. 604 of 1974 as a member of Bombay Zionist Association for himself and representing all the members of the Bombay Zionist Association, an unregistered Association, having its office at Narang House, 2nd Floor, 41-45, Hamam Street Bombay. The plaintiffs respondents Nos. 1 and ' instituted in this Court the said Suit No. 604 of 1974, inter alias for declaring that the Bombay Zionist Association and the 1st defendant and all members of the said Association or persons claiming through them and the defendants Nos. 2 to 13 had no right, title or interest in the said suit premises, viz., part of the 2nd floor at 41-45, Hamam Street, Bombay, or any part thereof. The prayer (b) of the plaint was for ordering the 1st defendant and all members of the Bombay Zionist Association and the defendants Nos. 2 to 13 to remove themselves and to deliver to the plaintiffs vacant possession of the suit premises. The prayer (c) of the plaint was for recovering from the defendants compensation from July 1971 at the rate of Rs. 240/- per month till 30th April, 1974 for wrongful occupation of the suit premises and further damages till the delivery of possession. The plaintiffs were granted leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for suing the 1st defendant as representing the members of the Bombay Zionist Association.

2. It is undisputed that long before the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 became the owners of the building known as Narang House situate at 41-45, Hamam Street, Bombay and at least since the year 1921, a tenancy shown in the name of the Bombay Zionist Association in respect of a part of the second floor of the said building had been in existence. The then owners till they transferred their right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiffs respondents Nos. 1 and 2 used to throughout grant rent receipts in respect of the said premises in the name of the Bombay Zionist Association. It is also not disputed that the Bombay Zionist Association is an unregistered body. With effect from 1st June, 1950 the plaintiffs respondents Nos. 1 and 2 became owners of the premises and thereafter had issued a letter calling upon the Bombay Zionist Association to attorn as a tenant in respect of the said premises under them. It is also not disputed that since the said purchase made by the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 all along rent used to be paid in the name of the Bombay Zionist Association for which the plaintiffs had granted rent receipts describing the said Association as their tenant in respect of the premises in question. Thereafter the plaintiffs had given a notice addressed to the said Association purporting to determine the said tenancy standing in the name of the Association. A reply was sent on behalf of the Association to the plaintiffs. Thereafter on 2nd March, 1964 the plaintiffs served a second notice to quit again addressed to the Bombay Zionist Association to which again a reply was sent on behalf of the Association. Thereafter, on or about 2nd December, 1964, the present plaintiffs had filed R.A.E. Suit No. 839/6863 of 1964 against the Bombay Zionist Association as a defendant in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay for eviction from the 2nd floor of the building at 63/67, Medows Street, Bombay. In the plaint of the said suit filed in the Court of Small Causes, Bombay, the plaintiffs had, inter alia, averred that the defendant Association was the tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises and the said tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit dated 2nd March, 1964. The plaintiffs further averred the grounds on which they were entitled to recover possession of the said premises from the defendant. The said suit was decreed ex parte against the defendant Association on 15th February, 1968. Upon application made by and on behalf of the defendant, in March 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document