Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 2220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
Puja Suresh Gentle & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Tata Housing Development Co Ltd & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Revision Application No. 319 of 2018; Civil Application No. 412 of 2018
Decided On : 16-10-2019
Prem Sood, Advocate, Akshay Shah, Advocate, Nirman Sharma, Advocate, Varun Satiya, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act, particularly regarding eviction based on alternative accommodation and subletting.
Headnote:
Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. - Eviction Dispute - Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (Bombay Rent Act) - Section 13
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the eviction dispute between Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd. and the successors of the original tenant, Suresh Gentle, under the Bombay Rent Act. The company sought eviction on grounds of alternative accommodation, subletting, immediate demolition and re-construction, and arrears of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the company's claim for eviction based on alternative accommodation and subletting was valid, but its claim for immediate demolition and re-construction was not upheld. The court also ruled that there was no demand from the company for arrears of rent.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the suit, alternative accommodation, illegal subletting, the company's requirement for demolition and reconstruction, and entitlement to mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the company's claim for eviction based on alternative accommodation and subletting, while rejecting the claim for immediate demolition and re-construction. The court also ruled that there was no demand from the company for arrears of rent.
Final Decision: The court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts and suspended the judgment for 12 weeks to allow the applicants to explore further adjudicatory avenues.
JUDGMENT
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - The applicants are the grand daughters of the original tenant, and the 1st respondent is the owner. The applicants grandfather was an Olympian; he left a legacy of medals in hockey and litigation, too.
2. To set out the facts in brief, I may note that Tata Housing Development Co. Ltd., employed the applicants grandfather Randhir Singh Gentle in their establishment. For he was an Olympian, being a part of the Hockey team that secured gold medal for India in the 1960s. He was also given accommodation. During his lifetime, he continued to enjoy the leased property, initially as an employee and later as an exemployee.
3. In the course of time, when Gentle was alive, the employer provided him financial assistance. And with that, he built a separate house at some other place. Yet he continued to occupy the leased property. Later he died. Among others, his wife and son succeeded him and continued to live in the property.
4. In 1995, Tata Housing Development Company, the owner, wanted to demolish the structure and raise a new one. Therefore, it wanted the tenants to vacate. For that purpose, all the tenants seem to have signed an agreement, as contemplated under Section 13 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ( Bombay Rent Act .) Let us confine our discussion to Gentle s successors. His legal representatives, including his son Suresh Gentle, on 17.4.1995, contracted with an owner in that regard. According to that agreement, Suresh Gentle and his family must be provided a transit accommodation until Tata Housing Finance could raise new structures and induct the family back. But that agreement has never taken effect.
5. At any rate, in 1998, Tata Housing Development filed RAE Suit No. 297/627 of 1998. It sought the eviction of Suresh Gentle s family on these grounds: (a) alternative accommodation, (b) subletting, (c) immediate demolition and re-construction and (d) arrears of rent. Eventually, the trial Court decreed the suit on 8th February 2010-on all grounds. Later, aggrieved Suresh Gentle filed Appeal No.149 of 2010. That was dismissed on 3.2.2018.
6. As a collateral fact, I may note that in the Suit, the first defendant was Suresh Gentle and the 2nd defendant was the alleged sub-tenant. The alleged sub tenant filed a written statement but led no evidence. When the appeal was pending, the 2nd defendant died in 2014. Then, his legal representatives came on record, but against the adverse decree, they did not appeal. It was only Suresh Gentle that carried the litigation. Pending the appeal, the very appellant, that is Suresh Gentle, too, died. So his two daughters came on record and continued the appeal but could not succeed. Eventually, they have filed this Civil Revision Application.
Submissions:
Applicants:
7. Shri Prem Sood, the learned counsel for the applicants, has submitted that the courts below have concurrently erred. To elaborate, he has submitted that the courts below, especially the Appellate Bench of the Small Cause Court, have rendered mechanical findings on all the issues. The impugned judgments betray non-application of mind.
8. To begin with, he has laid frontal emphasis on Exh.41 agreement to contend that the owner itself agreed to provide alternative accommodation to the applicants father. Had it been a case of the tenant s securing an alternative accommodation, the owner would not have offered him that transit arrangement, under an agreement. At any rate, he contends that though the Company wanted to go for immediate demolition, it did not comply with the statutory mandate under Section 13 of the Bombay Rent Act. Therefore, the agreement remained unenforced. But that said, that agreement amply demonstrated that Suresh Gentle s family could have an alternative accommodation if they were to vacate the leased property under any circumstances.
9. About the alleged illegal subletting, Shri Prem Sood submits that a friend of the applicants father, living
