Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
M/s. Mohanlal Kisanlal Agrawal & Others
Versus
Shri Ajitnath Jain Shetambar Mandir Trust through its Trustee Shri Bhushan Mangilal Jain & Others
WRIT PETITION No. 4590 OF 2010
Decided on : 05-01-2011
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 16(1)(g)-Eviction of tenant-Bona fide need of landlord/public trust-Trustees under Section 16(1)(g) required to establish requirement importing an element of necessity which compels them to file a suit for eviction-This logic applies for examining bona fide need not required to be applied as required in case of private landlords.-Provisions of Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates (Control) Act contains an identical provision like present Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. That provision is Section 13(1)(g). Said provision is considered in judgment in case of Bandhu Ravji Nikam v. Acharyaratna Deshbhushan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kolhapur, 2003 (1) All MR 198 by the Court in the light of its earlier judgment report at AIR 1973 Bom 46 (Kishinchand Murjimal v. Bai Kalavati). It is found that being Public Trust, requirement of pleading as well as proof to establish the ground under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Act is different than one required to be shouldered by any other landlord. The distinction between two parts of Section 13(1)(g) is noted for said purpose. Section 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is pari materia and that discussion is also material for present purpose. The Court in 1973 judgment holds that if the Legislature intended that the requirement of the trustees should also be proved to be bona fide and reasonable they would have stated so. Instead they have merely used the words, ’or where the landlord is a trustee of a public charitable trust that the premises are required for occupation for the purposes of the trust". It is an alternative ground in respect of premises belonging to public charitable trusts added to the ground which originally stood in clause (g) of Section 13(1), by Bombay Act 61 of 1953 to advance the cause of public charity by not allowing it to suffer for want of accommodation. The ground merely requires the trustees to establish that there is some requirement importing an element of necessity which compels them to file a suit for eviction. This logic applies here also and the contention that rigorous standards required to be applied to a case of private landlord while examining his bona fide need must also apply to public trust like present respondent No. 1, therefore, cannot be accepted.
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants have questioned the concurrent judgments delivered by the Trial Court as also the Appellate Court granting a decree of their eviction to respondent no.1 – Public Trust. Respondent no.2 is the Appellate Forum namely District Court, Nagpur while the respondent no.3 is the Trial Court i.e. Small Causes Court at Nagpur. The judgment of Trial Court is dated 07.12.2009 and it is delivered by the 2nd Additional Small Causes Curt, Nagpur in Regular Civil Suit No. 238/2005. Judgment of Appellate Court is dated 23.07.2010 and it is delivered by District Judge9, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 11/2010. Respondent no.1 – Public Trust sought eviction of defendants from a shop block admeasuring 700 sq. ft. on account of their need to construct a temple and a community hall on the plot of trust. The trial Court as also Appellate Court have found suit maintainable, not bad for nonjoinder of all Trustees and also need established by respondent no.1 landlord. It is also found that tenants could not establish that greater hardship will be caused to them.
2. I have heard Shri A.M. Gordey, learned Senior Counsel with Mrs. R.D. Raskar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri K.G. Sarda, learned Counsel for respondent no.1. Service of notice upon respondent nos. 2 and 3 was dispensed with, when this Court issued notice on 22.12.2010. Records and proceeding was also called for vide order dated 26.10.2010. Matter has been finally heard with consent of parties by issuing Rule & making it returnable forthwith.
3. Shri Gordey, learned Senior Counsel has contended that the resolution at Exh.20 on the basis of which the signatory to plaint Shri Bhushan Jain claimed authority to institute and file suit has not been proved, as required by law. His contention is, what is produced on record is a photostat copy of alleged resolution not signed in original, no leave was sought to lead secondary evidence and contents of documents or signature upon it have not been proved. In view of this position, it is urged that the suit as filed is not maintainable and all Trustees ought to have been impleaded. Support is being taken from the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported at AIR 2010 Bombay 88 (Shyamabai Surajkaran Joshi and others .vrs. Madan Mohan Mandir Sanstha). Attention is also invited to other Full Bench judgment of this Court reported at 2008 [6] All MR 352 (Mr. Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia .vrs. Subodh Mody) to urge that objection to admissibility of document (resolution) can be raised at any point of time.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1971 SC 1865 (Sait Tarajee Khimchand .vrs. Yelamarti Satyam), to urge that mere marking of documents as Exhibit is not sufficient to prove its contents. Attention has also been invited to requirement of proving such resolution by producing original and inadmissibility of secondary evidence by pointing out judgments reported at AIR 1954 SC 606 (Sitaldas .vrs. Santram), AIR 1994 SC 591 (Government of A.P. .vrs. Karri Chinnah), AIR 1964 SC 1625 (Mohd. Ikram Hussain .vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh), and AIR 1975 SC 1748 (Ashok Dhulichand .vrs. Madhaolal Dubey).
5. Attention is also invited to the notice dated 10.03.2005 issued before filing of the suit to urge that no specific purpose or need is pleaded in it and to urge that for the first time the purpose has been disclosed in suit. It is pointed out that the Trust already has a temple and there are other tenants in other blocks against whom no action has been taken. It is also urged that in this situation, as bonafides of Trust are not established, the decree for eviction could not have been passed. Attention is invited to examinationinchief of the witness for defendant [petitioner no.3] to show that shop blocks are constructed with funds donated, which also carry name of donors and hence it cann
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
