1999 Supreme(Bom) 138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
T.K. Chandrashekhara Das, J.
Shri Balkrishna Harischandra Patil..... Petitioner.
Versus
Shri Madhukar Madhavrao Deshpande ..... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 3060 of 1990, decided on 23-2-1999.
Advocates appeared :
A.V. Anturkar, for the petitioner.
R.S. Deshpande, for respondent.

Headnote:Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947

       Section 3(5)-By virtue of a mere mutation entry a person cannot get the title in his favour. AIR 1996 SC 2719, Rel.

       Section 13(1)(g) and Explanation-Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, Section 30-Suit for eviction-on ground of bona fide requirement of landlord-Suit filed by nominee/rent collector of landlord -Maintainability Held, Society can appoint its nominee only in respect of right and liability of its members-Nominee or power-of-attorney holder cannot claim ownership or title over property-Held, thus, suit by nominee not maintainable in view of Explanation to Section 13(1)(g) of Act.-An attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to produce document Exhs. C and D was the application by the petitioner to the District Survey Officer for informing him about the nomination made by the deceased K.M. Patil as his nominee and requested that his name may be entered in the place of deceaseds name Exh. D is the certificate issued by the Society accepting his nomination. But, these documents are produced in this Court. Admissibility of these documents at this stage is doubtful. Assuming that these documents can be entertained, in this proceedings, it does not have any bearing on the proprietary rights of the suit property. The society can change his nomination only in respect of rights and liabilities of its member. Any change of nomination in the Society will not automatically change the ownership or title over the property. Therefore, I do not find any relevancy in these documents vis-a-vis dispute involved in this case.

       The counsel for the petitioner could not effectively and legally attack the lower appellate Court order. The lower appellate Court has rightly rejected claim of the petitioner of bona fide requirement. At the time of filing the suit, he was only a rent collector. It may be argued that going by the definition of the landlord occurring in the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947, even a rent collector can for the limited purpose be treated as landlord. But, explanation to Section J 3(1)(g) clearly excludes the right of the rent collector to seek eviction on the ground of the bona fide need. At this juncture, it is better to refer explanation to. Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act : the expression landlord shall not include a rent farmer or rent collector or estate manager .

       It can be seen from the above explanation, that it clearly excludes the competency of the rent collector to maintain suit for eviction on the ground of Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act i.e., for bona fide requirement.

       Sections 13(1)(g) and 13(2), Explanation-Suit for eviction for bona fide requirement not maintainable by rent collector, who by virtue of the Explanation in Section 13(2) is not a landlord for the purpose of Section 13(1)(g).-In view of the Explanation in Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act providing that for the purposes of clause (g) of sub-section (1), the expression "landlord" shall not include a rent collector, such person cannot seek eviction on the ground of bona fide need. The fact that he may have inducted the respondent as tenant would be of no consequence inasmuch as inducting the tenant by a person and the right to induct a person are two different concepts. In order to attract Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act there must be circumstances existent at the time of induction of tenant that the person who inducts must be landlord.