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

1979 Supreme(Bom) 202

Bombay High Court
DESHPANDE,LENTIN
Vasant Tatoba Hargude - Appellant
Versus
Dikkaya Muttaya Pujari - Respondent
Decided On : 09/13/1979

Advocates:
M.A. Rane, for Petitioners; Ajit P. Shah for M.A. Garud, for Opponent.

A statutory tenant does not possess any transferable interest in his tenancy and cannot assign his tenancy rights.

Headnote:

RENT ACT - SECTION 15(1) - TRANSFER OF STATUTORY TENANCY - VALIDITY - INCIDENCE OF TENANCY - INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 12, 13(1)(E), 14 AND 15 - RATIO DECIDENDI OF ANAND NIVAS CASE (AIR 1965 SC 414) AND DAMADILAL'S CASE (AIR 1976 SC 2229) - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves a dispute over the validity of an assignment of statutory tenancy rights under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (the Rent Act). The original tenant, Labhashankar Pandya, sublet the ground floor of his rented premises to Gopalkrishna, who ran a hotel there. After Pandya became a statutory tenant, Gopalkrishna also became a statutory tenant under Section 14 of the Rent Act. Gopalkrishna died and assigned his business and tenancy rights to the plaintiff, Pujari, through an assignment deed. Pujari filed a suit for a declaration of his tenancy rights, which was allowed by the trial court. The landlord challenged the validity of the assignment and the decree in a Special Civil Application.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the assignment of statutory tenancy rights was not valid and effective. The court found that the ratio decidendi of Anand Nivas case (AIR 1965 SC 414), which held that statutory tenants do not possess any transferable interest in their tenancy, was still good law and binding on the court. The court distinguished Damadilal's case (AIR 1976 SC 2229), which dealt with the heritability of statutory tenancy, and held that it did not overrule the ratio of Anand Nivas case on the issue of transferability of statutory tenancy.

Issues: 1. Whether a statutory tenant has the authority to assign his tenancy rights? 2. Whether the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Rent Act prohibit the transfer of statutory tenancy rights? 3. Whether the ratio decidendi of Anand Nivas case (AIR 1965 SC 414) and Damadilal's case (AIR 1976 SC 2229) are applicable to the present case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A statutory tenant does not possess any transferable interest in his tenancy and cannot assign his tenancy rights. 2. Section 15(1) of the Rent Act prohibits the transfer of statutory tenancy rights, subject to any contract to the contrary. 3. The ratio decidendi of Anand Nivas case (AIR 1965 SC 414) is still good law and binding on the court. Damadilal's case (AIR 1976 SC 2229) does not overrule the ratio of Anand Nivas case on the issue of transferability of statutory tenancy.

Final Decision: The court allowed the landlord's petition and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the assignment of statutory tenancy rights was not valid and effective.

Judgement

DESHPANDE, J. :- This case raises a question of importance as to the authority of any statutory tenant to assign his tenancy rights and is referred to the Division Bench by Kanade, J., because of his difference on this point with the view of Mts. Justice Sujata Manohar indicated in the case of Hargovind Dharamsey and Co. v. Ruby and Co., AIR 1979 Bom 69. The facts so far as relevant to the point raised are not in dispute, The petitioners are the heirs of the landlord - original defendant. He was the owner of house C.S. Nos. 319 and 320 situated at Peth Bhag, Sangli. House C.S. No. 319 with which we are concerned, consisted of a ground floor and the first floor. Both the houses were let out to one Labhashankar Pandya in the year 1940. He sublet the ground floor of House No. 319 to one Gopalkrishna. He was running a hotel therein. Sub-tenancy of Gopalkrishna was held to be valid in an earlier Civil Suit No. 138 of 1956 by the landlord against him and the tenant, long before Section 15 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rent Act') was amended in the year 1959. The landlord again instituted two suits for possession against the tenant and the sub-tenant being Suit Nos. 218 and 219 both of 1961. Suit against the tenant - Pandya - was decreed and the landlord ultimately got possession of the first floor in execution of the decree on 7th July, 1964. The suit against the sub-tenant, Gopalkrishna, was, however, dismissed on 29th September, 1962. He thus himself became the tenant under Section 14 of the Rent Act.

2. Gopalkrishna died on 8th October, 1970. Before his death he assigned, his business of hotel along with the tenancy rights in the ground floor by an assignment deed dated 13-10-1969 in favour of the present plaintiff-respondent Pujari. The respondent thereupon instituted a declaratory Suit No. 351 of 1969 on 12-12-1969, before the death of the tenant of his having become the tenant of the 1st floor on the strength of the said assignment deed. This Suit, and Suit No. 273 of 1969 by the landlord against him and Gopalkrishna for enforcing his right of access from the ground floor stair-case to the first floor were tried together. This suit was dismissed on 30-3-1973 though the landlord's suit was decreed with which we are no more concerned in this case. On appeal by the plaintiff, however, the same was allowed and the suit has been decreed on 30-3-1974 declaring the plaintiff to have become the tenant. Validity of this decree is challenged by the heirs of the original landlord in this Special Civil Application.

3. That the assignor Gopalkrishna was a statutory tenant is not in dispute. The only question is whether statutory tenant's is competent to so assign his tenancy rights in the premises to the plaintiff. Assignment of tenancy rights under the Bombay Rent Act can be effective and valid, only if it is covered by the proviso to Section 15(1) thereof. Mr. Ajit Shah, the learned Advocate, appearing for the respondent-plaintiff, relied on this proviso before Kanade, J. It has, however, consistently been held by this Court that statutory tenant possesses only a right to remain in possession and he does not hold any transferable or heritable estate or interest in the premises so held by him as such statutory tenant. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Anand Nivas Pvt. Ltd. v. Anandji, AIR 1965 SC 414. This case further holds that prohibition against transfer and assignment under Section 15(1) of the Rent Act, and relaxation thereof under the proviso, is applicable only to the contractual tenant, and not to the statutory tenant, whose tenancy is per se not transferable. Mr. Rane, the learned advocate for the defendant-petitioner, relied on this judgement before Kanade, J. in support of his contention that statutory tenant did not possess any transferable interest and Section 15(1) or the proviso on which reliance was placed was inapplicable to the





























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