SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1748

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
JOGANI AND SACHDEV DEVELOPMENTS
VERSUS
LAWRENCE Dsouza
Decided no: December 15, 2005

Headnote:Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (18 of 2000) - Sections 33 and 3(1) - Development agreement between Developer and landlord - Suit filed by tenants for retaining possession of tenanted premises - Such prayer for protection of possession of premises would fall within the meaning of words "in relation to recovery of possession" - Suit between landlord and tenant relating to recovery to possession is to be filed under Section 33 of Act before Small Causes Court and not before City Civil Court - As the developer was covered by the definition of the word "Landlord" and plaintiffs are the tenants, suit would be between the landlord and the tenants. - The petitioner-developer entered into an agreement for sale with the original landlord and obtained the power of attorney to collect rent and settle the claim of the tenants for the purpose of redevelopment of the plot of land and entered into 24 agreements with the 24 occupiers of the premises. The respondents occupiers of premises filed a suit in the City Civil Court. The respondents-plaintiffs admitted that the petitioner is the purchaser of the said property from the original landlord and as the purchaser he has become owner of the said property meaning thereby that petitioner is the landlord of the respondents (original plaintiffs) who have filed the said suit. It has been stated in the plaint that the agreement which has been executed by and between the plaintiffs and the defendant is invalid. A declaration is sought that the said agreement is void and unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs. The nature of the relief sought for is for retaining possession of tenanted premises. There is no doubt that such a prayer for protection of possession of the premises would fall within the meaning of the words "in relation to recovery of possession" and, therefore, the suit between the landlord and tenant relating to the recovery of possession ought to have been filed under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 before the Small Causes Court at Bombay because it has been conferred with an exclusive jurisdiction to try such suit. It is no doubt true that the agreement for sale does not create any right, title and interest and the deed of conveyance is only executed in 2004. However, the provisions of Section 3(1) which defines the landlord is a most vital and covers not only the owner of the property but even the Rent Collector and also the person who is collecting the rent on behalf of the original owner. For the purpose of Section 3(1) the word ’landlord’ would take into its sweep the petitioner also even if there is no conveyance in his favour and that he has not become the absolute owner of the said property and that he became the owner only in 2004. Once the petitioner is covered by definition of the word ’landlord’ and the respondents-plaintiffs are admittedly the tenants of the said property then the suit would be between the landlord and the tenants as contemplated under Section 33 of the Act and thus, the City Civil Court has no jurisdiction to maintain and try the suit. It is only the Small Causes Court at Bombay who has an exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try such a suit. AIR 1980 Bom 123; 1988 (2) BCR 9; AIR 1958 Bom 270; AIR 1962 SC 633; (1995) 2 SCC 665 - Referred.

( 1 ) BY the present petition the order dated 9-8-2005 passed by the City Civil Court on a preliminary issue of jurisdiction in L. C. Suit no. 2974 of 2004 is challenged. Some of the material facts of the present case can be briefly set out as under :-

( 2 ) THE original plaintiffs being respondents herein are the tenants in respect of tenements situated on a plot of land bearing No. 298, Hissa No. 9 and 15 admeasuring 4961 sq. yards equivalent to 4098 sq. mtrs. at Kole Kalyan, Taluka andheri in the City of Bombay. The original landlord was one Sheikh Gafoor sheikh Cassum. By an agreement dated 12-8-1987 entered into by the between sheikh Gafoor Sheikh Cassum and M/s Jogani and Sachdev Development the original landlord was selling the said property to the purchaser for the sum of rs. 1,80,000/ -. Under the said agreement for sale dated 12-8-1987 the original landlord also executed a power of attorney in favour of Avtarsingh Sachdev and ghewarchand Lalchand Jogani inter alia conferring therein a right to develop the said property and/or settle the tenants and obtain sanction and after obtaining sanction of the B. M. C. construct a building on the said plot of land. Pursuant to the said agreement the said purchaser namely, Ghewarchand Lalchand Jogani has issued the rent receipts to the tenants being respondents herein and the respondents have paid the payment of the rent to the said developer for the purpose of said tenements which were in their use, occupation and possession. On 1-3-1992, the petitioner who was the developer and who has entered into an agreement for sale with the original landlord and obtained the power of attorney to collect rent and settle the claim of the tenants for the purpose of redevelopment of the said plot of land entered into 24 agreements with the 24 occupiers of the premises in Goodluck House as agreed that on the respondents-original plaintiffs vacating the said premises and handing over the vacant and peaceful possession of the plot to the petitioner developer, the petitioner will give them in a reconstructed building residential flats of a round 324 sq. ft. built-up area with amenities which are stipulated therein. On 8-3-1992 a separate letter was executed by and between the developer and the tenants that the tenants will have an option to acquire ownership right in the new premises but for the purpose of the same the tenants will have to pay the sum of Rs. 5000/- to the developer for the purpose of acquiring ownership right in the said new premises. In any event if the tenants do not wish to exercise the said right then the tenants will be entitled to get the newly constructed premises on a tenancy basis and not on the ownership basis. On 27-8-1993, the plans of the building were sanctioned. Under the proposal it was provided to construct two buildings on the said plot of land, one building for rehabilitation of the tenants and another building for sale of flats in open market. The plans for both the said buildings were sanctioned on 27-8-1993 and 2-1-1996 respectively. Sometime in or about 2002, the respondents herein filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 530 of 2002 against the petitioner and sought a relief that the petitioner should not be permitted to construct the building as per the sanctioned plan. On 17-10-2003 after completion of the construction, the petitioner obtained an occupation certificate from the Bombay Municipal Corporation in respect of the building which was constructed for rehabilitating the tenants and made an offer to the occupier of the premises to vacate their premises and asked them to shift to the newly constructed building as per the development agreement.

( 3 ) IN June, 2004, the respondents herein have filed a suit in the City Civil court being Suit No. 2794 of 2004. The averments made in the plaint inter alia indicate in para 2 that the respondents-plaintiffs admitted that the petitioner is the purchaser of the said property from the original landlord and








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top