Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.M. SAVANT, J.
Messrs Miscellenary Marketers Pvt. Ltd. – Applicants
Versus
Messrs SunNSand Pvt. Ltd. – Respondents
Civil Revision Application No. 331, 335 of 2015 With Civil Application No. 295, 297 of 2015
Decided On : 08-01-2016
Ms. Zenobia S. Irani, for the Applicants in both the CRAs.
Mr. P. S. Dani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Durgaprasad Sabnis a/w Ms.
Shauna Jain i/by Lex Firmus, for the Respondents in both the CRAs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the lease agreement and the determination of the nature of the document as a licence and not a lease, based on the provisions of relevant acts and the relationship between the parties.
Headnote:
LEASE - Interpretation of Lease Agreement - Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Indian Easements Act, 1882 - The court interpreted the lease agreement between the parties and concluded that the document in question was a licence and not a lease. The relationship of the parties was therefore that of a licensor and licensee. The court also held that the suit filed for possession of the premises was maintainable under Section 41(h) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and dismissed the revision applications.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between the original Plaintiffs and Defendants over the nature of the agreement between them. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants were licensees, while the Defendants claimed that they were tenants of the suit premises. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs, and the Appellate Bench confirmed the decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the document in question was a licence and not a lease, and the relationship between the parties was that of a licensor and licensee. The court also held that the suit for possession of the premises was maintainable under Section 41(h) of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the document in question was a lease or a licence, and whether the suit for possession of the premises was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of the lease agreement, the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and Indian Easements Act, 1882 to determine the nature of the document and the relationship between the parties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision applications and stayed the decree of possession for a period of eight weeks to enable the Applicants to approach the Apex Court.
1. Admit, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties heard forthwith.
2. By way of the above Civil Revision Applications the applicants seek to invoke the Revisionary Jurisdiction of this Court against the common judgment and order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, by which the Appeals being Appeal No.16 of 2011 and Appeal No.17 of 2011 filed by the Applicants came to be dismissed and the cross objection No.3 of 2011 filed by the original Plaintiffs came to be allowed and resultantly, the decree passed by the Trial Court dated 27.01.2011 came to be confirmed.
Both the above Civil Revision Applications involve common facts which can be conveniently narrated as under:
3. The Civil Revision Applicants are the original Plaintiffs in LD Suit No.59 of 1995 and the Defendants in LE & C Suit No.17/17 of 1996. The Respondents are the original Defendants in the said LD Suit No.59 and 1995 and the Plaintiffs in LE & C Suit No.17/17 of 1996. The suit premises is Shop No.2 admeasuring 200 sq.ft. on the ground floor of the hotel run by the Defendants being Sun-N-Sand Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai400 049. The suit premises are more appropriately described in the plaints in the suits filed by the respective parties. The parties would be referred to hereinafter as per their status in the eviction suit being LE & C Suit No.17/17 of 1996. The Applicants herein Messrs Miscellenary Marketers would be referred to as the Defendants whereas Messrs Sun-N-Sand Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the Respondents herein would be referred to as the Plaintiffs. The acts in contention in the above Civil Revision Applications are the Bombay Rent Act, 1947 which for brevities sake would be referred to as the “Rent Act”. The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 which would be referred to for brevities sake as the “PSCC Act”. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which would be referred to for brevities sake as the “T. P. Act” and the Indian Easements Act, 1882 which would be referred to as the “Easements Act”.
4. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are both registered private limited companies registered as such under the Companies Act, 1956. An agreement was entered into between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants for the first time on 01.07.1988. By the said agreement the Plaintiffs had granted a licence to the Defendants to sell goods and merchandise in the hotel run by them being Sun-N-Sand. In pursuance of the said licence the Plaintiffs had let out the suit premises to the Defendants i.e. Messrs Miscellenary Marketers on monthly rent of Rs.1500/for a period of 4½ years for selling various goods and merchandise. In terms of the said agreement the Defendants paid an amount of Rs.4500/as security deposit which was equivalent to three months rent. The said agreement dated 01.07.1988 came to an end on 31.12.1992. Further agreement was entered into on 01.01.1993 for a period of 20 months on the same terms and conditions. After the expiry of the second agreement dated 01.01.1993 a fresh agreement was entered on 01.10.1994 for a further period of one year however with a clause of renewal which agreement according to the Defendants was to come to an end on 30.09.1997. It was the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiffs had given exclusive possession of the suit premises to the Defendants and that no duplicate key of the suit premises was with the Plaintiffs. In so far as the Plaintiffs are concerned, i.e. Sun-N-Sand Hotel Private Limited, it was their case that since it was not possible for the Defendants to supply various articles and things of necessity and utility to its guests, the Plaintiffs permitted the Defendants to carry on the business of selling and supplying of various goods and merchandise as per the agreement dated 01.07.1988 and thereafter to continue to do so pursuant to the further agreements which were entered i
