Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
Ratnamala Mohan Aklujkar of Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sushila Nirmalkumar Rungta, (Deleted since Deceased) Thr. LRs. – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 1725 of 2023
Decided on : 29-11-2023
Eviction Suit - Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 - Section 16(1)(a) and (b) - Order XXII, Rule 10 of CPC - The court discussed the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, and Order XXII, Rule 10 of the CPC. It highlighted the interpretation of these provisions and their influence on the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition challenges the Appellate Bench's decision to set aside the Single Judge's order, which rejected the Plaintiff's eviction suit under Section 16(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, based on the sale of the premises to a third party.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Bench's decision to set aside the Single Judge's order was upheld, emphasizing that the suit could continue with the original plaintiff for the benefit of the new owner, as per Order XXII, Rule 10 of the CPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the sale of the premises to a third party during the pendency of the eviction suit would terminate the cause of action and the relationship of landlord and tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit could continue with the original plaintiff for the benefit of the new owner, as per Order XXII, Rule 10 of the CPC, and the sale of the premises to a third party did not terminate the cause of action.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the Judgment and Order dated 20 December, 2022 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in Appeal No.258 of 2021, which had quashed and set aside the Order dated 1 September, 2021 passed by the Single Judge of the Court of Small Causes.
2. The Petitioner is the Original tenant in an Eviction Suit and the Respondents are the Legal Heirs of Original landlord.
3. The landlord filed a Eviction Suit under Section 16(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, being R.A.E. Suit No.251/365 of 2010, before the Court of Small Causes at Bombay.
4. Defendant/tenant after being served with the writ of summons appeared in the matter and filed her Written Statement, thereby denying the contentions of the Plaintiff. Soon thereafter, issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded.
5. On 18 March, 2021, the Defendant/tenant filed an Application (Exh.52) for rejection of Plaint. On the ground that Plaintiff by way of conveyance dated 18 September, 2019 sold the building in which the Suit Premises existed to Mrs. Mamta Anil Jain and Mr. Anil Jain. Therefore, since the Plaintiff ceased to be the owner/the relationship of landlord and tenant came to an end, hence the cause of action does not survive and as such the Suit is not maintainable and it is barred under the provisions of CPC. As a consequence, the Suit filed by the Plaintiff be dismissed or the Plaint be rejected.
6. The Plaintiff filed their reply to the said Application. So also the Defendant filed rejoinder to the reply of the Plaintiff.
7. The Single Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay thereafter heard both the parties and by its Judgment and Order dated 1 September, 2021 allowed the Application of the Defendant, thereby rejecting the Plaint and dismissing the Suit.
8. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the Suit, the Plaintiff filed an Appeal bearing No.258 of 2021 before the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The Appellant Bench heard both the sides and by its Judgment and Order dated 20 December, 2022 allowed the Appeal of the Plaintiff thereby setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 1 September, 2021 passed in R.A.E. Suit No.251/365 of 2010.
9. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order dated 20 December, 2022, the Defendant filed the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay on 20 December, 2022.
SUBMISSIONS :
10. Mr. Chandrakant Chavan made his submissions on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant.
10.1. Mr. Chavan submitted that the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court erred in setting aside a well reasoned Order passed by the Single Judge of the Court of Small Causes.
10.2. Mr. Chavan further submitted that the Appellate Bench erred in not considering the fact that the Trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 151 of CPC and therefore, the Appellate Bench ought not to have disturbed discretionary Order passed by the Trial Judge.
10.3. Mr. Chavan further submitted that the Appellate Bench erred in not considering the provisions of Order I, Rule 10 and Order VII, Rule 11, as well as Order XXII, Rule 10 of CPC in proper perspective.
10.4. Mr. Chavan submitted that the provisions of Section 33 of Maharashtra Rent Control Act and Section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, were not considered in proper perspective.
10.5. Mr. Chavan further submitted that once it was admitted that the Suit Premises has been sold by the Plaintiff to a third party on 18 September, 2019, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties comes to an end and hence, there does not exist any cause of action against the Defendant. In fact the Court of Small Causes lost its jurisdiction to decide and entertain the Suit.
10.6. Mr. Chavan relied upon the following Judgments to buttress his submissions :
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon ano....
The court established that a suit's continuation is not automatically barred by the transfer of interest in the subject matter during its pendency.
CPC is not applicable to rent cases as it is applicable strictly to Civil Suits, but principles contained in provisions of CPC are applicable for adjudication of Rent Petition also.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of estoppel, where the tenant's acceptance of the landlord's ownership through various actions and documents led to the dismissal of ....
Tenants cannot challenge the landlord's title in eviction proceedings; only the landlord-tenant relationship is relevant under the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
A tenant's purchase of an undivided share does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship, allowing eviction proceedings to continue.
Tenancy rights under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act are inherited by legal heirs post-death of the tenant, necessitating court validation for possession claims.
A landlord must issue a valid demand notice under Section 15(2) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act before initiating eviction proceedings; failure to do so renders the suit invalid.
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
