Back
2007 Supreme(Bom) 754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SMT.ROSHAN DALVI,J.
M/s. Rolex Marbles - Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Great Mumbai - Respondent s
FIRST APPEAL NO.232 OF 2007
IN L.C. SUIT NO.1474 OF 2003
Decided on : 15TH JUNE, 2007
Mr. M.U. Pandey, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. J. J.Xavier , Advocate for the Respondent No.1
Mr. Jitendra Damania, Advocate for Respondent No.2
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a party claiming tenancy rights and title to immovable property to prove such rights through unambiguous and valid documentary evidence.
Headnote:
Title to Immovable Property - Tenancy Rights - Bombay Rent Act - [Section 13, Bombay Rent Act] - The judgment discusses the Appellant's claim to tenancy rights over two separate open lands, the issuance of rent receipts, and the legal requirement to prove title to immovable property through documentary evidence. The court considered the rent receipts, their validity, and the relevance of counterfoil receipt books in determining the Appellant's title to the second larger open land.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant claimed tenancy rights to two separate open lands and sought a declaration that the sanction of plan for construction by Respondent No.1 was illegal. The Appellant also sought injunctions against dispossessing him from the second larger open land and interfering with his business activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellant failed to prove his title to the second larger open land through documentary evidence, specifically in relation to the issuance and validity of rent receipts. As a result, the court dismissed the Appellant's suit.
Issues: The main issue was the Appellant's failure to prove his tenancy rights and title to the second larger open land through documentary evidence, particularly in relation to the validity of rent receipts and the absence of counterfoil receipt books for one year.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the legal requirement for the Appellant to prove his tenancy rights and title to the immovable property through documentary evidence, specifically rent receipts. The court emphasized the relevance of valid and unambiguous documents in establishing legal rights.
Final Decision: The Appeal was dismissed, and the ad-interim reliefs granted pending the Appeal were to continue for a period of 6 weeks.
1. This Appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court dated 8th December, 2006. The Respondent s have appeared and argued in support of the Judgment. The Appellant has produced the compilation of the document s along with the copies of entire evidence of the pleadings on record.
2. The ambit of this Appeal is extremely narrow. The legal right of the Appellant is essentially to be determined upon documentary evidence since it is with regard to title to an immovable property.
3. The Appellant claims to have taken on tenancy two distinct lands at two separate times.
4. The Respondent No.2 contends that there is no second tenancy and that the Appellant has trespas sed upon the land outside the land tenanted to him on which he has put up a structure.
5. The Appellant's suit is for a declaration that the sanction of plan by Respondent No.1, the MMC, which is the Planning Authority, permitting the construction of the compound wall to Respondent No.2 is illegal and injunction against respondent No.2 not to dispossess him from the second larger open land and against constructing the compound wall within that portion. It is also for injunction restraining Respondent No.2 from interfering with the Appellant's business activities on the second larger open land.
6. The Appellant has therefore, to show his title, right and interest in respect of such open lands.
7. The Appellant's case can be decided only upon the document s produced and proved by the Appellant in support of his claim. The claim to immovable property and the legal right, title and interest claimed therein can only be by production of documentary evidence with regard to such immovable property. The Appellant's claim for two lands of entirely different dimensions in the same area under two rent receipts has to be shown. For the reliefs claimed by the Appellant showing and proving his legal right by document s is the only requirement. On this basis the impugned Judgment has to be considered.
8. The Appellant admittedly took on rent one open premises admeasuring about 1500 sq. ft. from the Respondent No.2. The Appellant was issued a rent receipt in respect of that open land. That rent receipt is shown to be dated 13th November, 1984. It is for the months of August to November, 1984. It is for Rs.2000 / - . Hence, for an open land of about 1500 sq. ft. rent at the rate of Rs.500 / - per month came to be charged and paid. The Appellant has constructed a structure thereon. There is another lis between the parties in the Small Cause Court, Bombay under a Bombay Rent Act with regard to that structure, and with which the Civil Court as well as the Appeal from the Judgment of the Civil Court are not concerned.
9. The Appellant claims to have taken on tenancy another open land from the Respondent No.2. That is the suit premises. That aspect has been disputed. The Appellant has to prove his claim of tenancy on that second open land. That land is admittedly still an open land. It admeasures 6925 sq. ft. The rent receipt shown by the Appellant's Advocate for that second larger open land is dated 31st Janua ry, 1986. It is for the month of November, 1985, for Rs.500 / - . Hence, for the much larger open land also in the month of November, 1985 the rent which was charged was Rs.500 / - per month, if the case of the Appellant has to be believed under that claim.
10. At the time the second open land was taken, the Appellant already had taken on tenancy the first open land on which a structure has, later has been constructed by the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant must have two rent receipts for the period immediately after he took on tenancy the second larger open land. The Appellant has not produced two separate rent receipts for the two separate lands tenanted by him from the Respondent no.2 for the month of November, 1985 or thereafter.
11. It is argued on behalf
