JUDGMENT - GUTTAL G.H., J.:—The question in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is whether the sale by a landlord of the premise, possession of which was recovered in pursuance of a decree under section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act-constitutes "reletting" of the premises within the meaning of section 17(1) of the Act.

2. The respondent No. 2 Basantibai who was the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 239 of 1971 obtained a decree for eviction against the respondent No. 1 on the ground that she needed the premises "reasonably and bona fide" for occupation by herself. She recovered possession of the premises in pursuance of the decree on 19-3-1975. But, on 9th September, 1975, within six months of the recovery of possession, Basantibai sold the premises to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1, the tenant, applied for possession under section 17(1) of the Act on the ground that the landlord, by selling the premises, has "relet" them within one year from the date of recovery of possession. Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Act does entitle a tenant to recover possession from the landlord and any person who may be in occupation, if the landlord "relets" the premises in the circumstances stated in that section (sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act.).

The learned IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Nasik, who dismissed the Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1981 against the Order of the Joint Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Nasik, allowing the application of the respondent No. 1, held that the transfer by sale constitutes "relating" of the premises.

3. The general rule is that the landlord is not entitled to recover possession of any premises from a tenant as long as the latter pays or is ready and willing to pay standard rent and permitted increases and performs the terms of tenancy (section 12 of Bombay Rent Act). However, a landlord is entitled to recover possession on certain grounds set out in sub-section (1) of section 13 of Act which include the ground that the landlord "reasonably and bona fide requires the premises for occupation by himself of by any person for whose benefit the premises are held". If the landlord exercises his right to recover possession under section 13(1)(g) of the Act, it follows that he must use if for the purpose for which the possession was recovered. IN order to ensure that this is done, the Legislature stepped in to lay down that the landlord shall occupy the premises within one month from the date of its recovery. (Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act). In order that the landlord does not misuse the right under section 13(1)(g), sub-section (1) of section 17 stipulates that the landlord shall not relet the premises within one year (Sub-section (1) of section 17 of Bombay Rent Act). If the premises are so relet, there is a resultant right in the tenant to recovery possession and occupy the premises on the original terms and conditions (Sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Bombay Rent Act).

4. The question is whether this consequence of the reletting the premises within one year follows even where the landlord disposes of his interest in the property in any other manner. While section 13(1)(g) creates in the landlord the right to recover possession for his own occupation, sub-section (1) of section 17 lays down certain consequences which are designed to discourage the landlord from reletting the premises to a person other than the original tenant. The implied prohibition against reletting is not absolute and perpetual. The tenant gets the right to apply under sub-section (1) of section 17 only if the premises are relet within one year of the recovery of possession. In other words, if the landlord relets the premises after one year, the tenant has no right to apply for reinstatement into the premises.

The stipulation of one year during which the landlord cannot relet the premises and the con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document