Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. PATEL, J.
Esoof Shoeb Contractor - Appellant
Vs.
Mridangraj Hiralal Suchak Alias Barfiwala - Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 589 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 1977 of 2013, Revision Application No. 190 of 2012
Decided On : 15-07-2019
Civil Procedure Code,1860 – Section 115 Order 18 - Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999 - Section 15(2), 16(1)(c), 16(1)(g), 16(1)(n) and 16(2) - Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Section 376 and 376A - City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation Act, 1948 – Section 229 - Suit for eviction – Property - Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 – Section 280 and 281 - Evidence Act – Section 60 and 62 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 - Applicants are the original plaintiffs - They are the landlords - They filed an eviction suit in Court of Small Causes against sole Defendant-tenant building in question is known as Coronation Building - It is at old and densely populated area - There are several such old buildings here, many of them tenant present tenancy premises in question are on the ground floor of Coronation Building - These are commercial premises - Plaintiffs were not original owners of this building - Defendants father, was the original tenant - Three Plaintiffs say they purchased building - Court will return to a description of the three Plaintiffs and how they are associated with each other a little later - Plaintiffs filed an eviction Suit - Whether judgment of learned Trial Judge needs to be interfered with – Held, Appellate Order is a finding returned that it was never the case of Plaintiffs that defaulted in making payment of the amount determined, i.e. of standard rent fixed - Court accept proposition that Appeal is a continuation of the suit, and that tenant must continue depositing; and, too, that where a demand is made, tenant must deposit the admitted amount - Court see no reason to multiply authorities needlessly on law so well settled - But this takes him nowhere - Court do not think it is the province of the court to embark on some expedition to find out what it is that the parties have or have not done, or that an appellant is at liberty to omit bringing to notice of court after a point he believes is in his favour, and when he fails, to complain long and loud that court did not excavate that nugget of information - Law is not archaeology - Court take the facts as they are brought before court - Court do not go around rooting for some factual truffle - Court unable to see how the Plaintiffs can oppose such an application and simultaneously complain of non-deposit - Court also do not see how, only at fag end of all of this, Plaintiffs can turn around and say that they will accept correctness of the standard rent fixed, something that they opposed steadily throughout - It is impermissible, in my view, to raise in this court for first time a ground never taken before, rely on a factual statement to which the Plaintiffs drew no Courts attention, one that is not a ground in Writ Petition, but of which there is no evidence at all - Writ Petition are dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
G.S. Patel, J.
1. The applicants are the original plaintiffs. They are the landlords. They filed an eviction suit in the Court of Small Causes against the sole Defendant-tenant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 8th April 2015. (Record, pp. 363 - 396) The landlords' appeal failed on 6th June 2016. (Record, pp. 397 - 420. Minor errors in the appellate order were corrected on 9th August 2016 (Record, pp. 411 - 412.)) The landlords challenge that appellate order in this Civil Revision Application. A learned single Judge admitted the CRA on 23rd March 2017.
2. I have heard Mr. Godbole for the Appellants (Original Plaintiffs), and Mr. Kapadia for the Respondent (Original Defendant) at considerable length. I have considered carefully the record of the Civil Revision Application and the Writ Petition, the rival submissions and the authorities cited. For the reasons that follow I have held against the Plaintiffs and dismissed both the Civil Revision Application and the Writ Petition in this common judgment.
3. The Plaintiffs sought the Defendant's eviction from the suit premises on three principal grounds under the Rent Act: bona fide requirement or need; non-user of the rented premises; and non-payment of arrears of rent and permitted rent increases.
4. The building in question is known as Coronation Building. It is at Cawasji Patel Tank in Mumbai, an old and densely populated area. There are several such old buildings here, many of them tenanted. The present tenancy premises in question are on the ground floor of Coronation Building. These are commercial premises. They admeasure about 2,200 sq ft. The Plaintiffs were not the original owners of this building. The Defendant's father, Hiralal, was the original tenant. The three Plaintiffs say they purchased the building on 7th October 2003. I will return to a description of the three Plaintiffs and how they are associated with each other a little later. After Hiralal died, his tenancy devolved on the present Defendant, ("Suchak"). On 29th March 2006, the Plaintiffs through their Advocate sent a notice to Suchak saying he was in arrears of rent and permitted increases, claiming that he had not used the premises for six months without reasonable cause, and also claiming they required the premises for their own bona fide requirement. They terminated Suchak's tenancy.
5. The Plaintiffs filed an eviction Suit No. 1312 of 1979 ("the first eviction Suit") against Suchak. In July 2007, this suit was dismissed in default. The Plaintiffs filed an application to have that order of dismissal set aside. This was allowed in 2008. Suchak filed a Revision Application. In April 2008, that Revision Application was allowed. Against that order, the Plaintiffs filed a Civil Revision Application to this Court. This was dismissed on 2nd July 2008 but with a clarification that, subject to limitation, the Plaintiffs were at liberty (the order says "have a right") to file a fresh suit in accordance with law. (Record, pp. 16 - 17). A few months later, on 29th August 2008 the Plaintiffs filed the present eviction Suit - RAE & R Suit No. 1063/1796 of 2008 ("the second eviction Suit"). This sought Suchak's eviction on the three grounds I have mentioned earlier.
6. While this suit was pending and after he filed his written statement in April 2009, Suchak filed RAN Application No. 66/SR of 2008 for fixation of the standard rent for the suit premises. (Record, pp. 33 - 44).
7. In the meantime, the second eviction Suit proceeded. The Trial Court framed issues on 30th June 2011. (Record, p. 45). A little over a year later it framed additional issues. (Record, p. 46.). At about the same time, in July 2012, the Trial Court rejected Suchak's standard rent fixation application. He filed Revision Application No. 190 of 2012 and this was allowed on 25th October 2012 fixing the standard rent at Rs. 432/- per month.
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
