2019 Supreme(Bom) 496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.G. KETKAR, J.
Mahendra Valji Rathod - Appellant
Vs.
National Radio and Electronics Company - Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 180 of 2010
Decided on : 05-04-2019

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 115 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 3(1)(b) - Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1887 - Section 41 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 - Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 - Article 24(b) - Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17, 47 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 302 - Companies Act - Section 25 – Suit for possession – Sale deed - Executed a deed of Conveyance in his favour on - Said Conveyance was executed by, and as vendors on one hand and the plaintiff as a purchaser on the other. The Deed of Conveyance was executed by Jyoti for herself as also as the Constituted Attorney of - Deed of Confirmation was executed between, and on one hand and plaintiff on the other on 03.08.1999. Confirmation Deed was presented for registration and was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Mumbai vide - plaintiff, therefore, claimed to have become absolute owner and landlord of flat No.2 and suit premises - Plaintiff contended that with effect, Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 came into force - Paid up share capital of the defendants is more than - In view of Section 3(1)(b) of Act, defendants are not entitled to protection under the Act and are exempt from the provisions of the Act. By letters and through Advocate, plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendants in respect of suit premises and called upon them to handover possession of the suit premises. By letters defendants called upon the plaintiff to furnish a copy of Conveyance and about non-signing of Letter of Attornment by other co-owners - defendants also pleaded renewal of the Lease Deed as per the option given to them under the Lease Deed. It is the case of the defendants that by their letter they had exercised their right to renew the lease for a further period of 20 years to which, since deceased did not reply. - whether the defect in Deed of Conveyance on account of non-registration is cured by subsequent Deed of Confirmation which is duly registered Whether any leasehold right in respect of the premises No, Park Street, Calcutta has legally vested in Messers Steph Court Limited in the absence of any registered deed conveying, transferring and/or assigning the unexpired period of lease by Mr. Aratoon Stephen in favour of Messers Stephen Court Limited and whether Messers Stephen Court Limited had any legal right to make application before this Hon’ble Court in 1986 praying for extension of the period of Head Lease of - Whether the defect of unregistered document assigning lease of immovable property stood cured by registration of subsequent document i.e. Debenture Trust Deed? - whether as an assignee of the leasehold or as a monthly tenant, the Company was entitled to protect its possession – Held, Vendors agreed and confirmed that they had duly executed Deed of Conveyance in favour of the purchaser - Original Deed of Conveyance was annexed and marked Exhibit-A - Vendors further agreed and confirmed that for all practical purposes said land and the premises described in the Second Schedule written thereunder shall be deemed to have been conveyed to the purchaser (plaintiff) as from and that they have done no act, deed, matter or things whereby they prevented from executing or granting or conveying the said land and the premises. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Official Trustees of W.B. (supra) to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the vendors admitted and acknowledged the fact of conveying the land and the premises, more particularly described in the Second Schedule, to the plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the suit premises forms part of the Second Schedule. - Even if assignment was required to be made by reason of a registered document, it is beyond any cavil of doubt that as the Official Trustee had all along been receiving stipulated monthly rent from the Company, it was, thus, admitted and acknowledged to be the lessee in respect of the leasehold. The Official Trustee not only accepted the rent, but also - Company, therefore, for all intent and purport became a lessee under Official Trustee - Although in a case of this nature, applicability of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act may not be of much significance, but whether as an assignee of the leasehold or as a monthly tenant Company was entitled to protect its possession - Rightly or wrongly, the question of renewal of the said lease for a further period of sixty years came to be mooted - offer of the Company was that at the end of the period of lease, the property would vest in the Official Trustee - It is again beyond any doubt or dispute that the Official Trustee could have granted a lease. It could have also extended the period of lease - It is material to note that the plaintiff had called upon the defendants to take inspection of the documents, and till date, no inspection was taken by the defendants. In my opinion, the Appellate Court Committed serious error in holding that plaintiff has not conclusively proved his title - Appellate Court also committed error in holding that there is no cogent evidence that Nirmalaben executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Jyoti as there is no such reference in the Conveyance Deed or Confirmation Deed - In light of the discussion order passed by the Appellate Court deserves to be set aside thereby restoring the order passed by learned trial Judge - Hence following order - Rule accordingly