Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
Sud Chemie India Pvt Ltd, - Appellant
Versus
Kotak & Company Limited - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 10039 OF 2025 IN MARJI APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2025 IN R.A.E. SUIT NO. 371/582 OF 2007, WRIT PETITION NO. 10040 OF 2025 IN MARJI APPLICATION NO. 50 OF 2025 IN R.A.E. SUIT NO. 370/581 OF 2007
Decided on : 05-08-2025
Important Points
Subject
Property Law - Eviction and Tenant Rights
Act Referred
BOMBAY RENT ACT: S.15, S.15(a), S.4(1)
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged the execution of eviction orders based on jurisdictional grounds post-decree against their alleged unlawful occupation of the suit premises previously tenanted by a deceased individual, leading to the institution of eviction suits by the landlord against unknown heirs. (Paras 6.6, 6.10)
Findings of Court:
The Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to rule on eviction cases based upon unlawful sub-letting; hence, the decrees were valid. (Paras 39, 40)
Issues: The core legal question was whether the Court lacked jurisdiction over a multinational company occupant in light of rent control exemptions. (Paras 15, 31)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the relationship between the parties does not obviate the application of the Rent Act where the premises are involved and established that the primary tenant's status determined the case's viability. (Paras 39)
Result: Petitions dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar
For the Respondent:Mr. Abhay Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate, with Rajesh A. Revankar, i/b A.G. Revankar & Co
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitions initiated regarding jurisdiction of rae suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of the tenancy dispute and the primary legal questions surrounding jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. facts surrounding tenancy and alleged sub-letting. (Para 6) |
| 4. arguments on inherent jurisdiction and misapplication of law. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. counterarguments on legality of suit and tenant’s status. (Para 12 , 13 , 15) |
| 6. court's reasoning on jurisdiction under the rent act and validity of the eviction decree. (Para 16 , 39) |
| 7. clarification of protections under rent control act. (Para 21 , 22 , 31) |
| 8. conclusion and dismissal of the petitions. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. In Writ Petition No. 10039 of 2025, the Petitioner-Original Defendant No.2, takes exception to an order passed by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes in MARJI Application No. 51 of 2025, dated 11th July 2025, whereby an Application preferred by the Petitioner to declare that the decree dated 6th January 2025 passed in RAE Suit No. 371/582 of 2007 was null and void and not executable as the same had been passed by the Court which had no jurisdiction, came to be rejected, and two consequential orders dated 11th July 2025 and 15th July 2025, issuing possession warrant and declining to stay the execution of the said possession warrant, respectively.
3. In Writ Petition No. 10040 of 2025, there is an identical challenge to the order dated 11th July 2025 passed in MARJI Application No. 50 of 2025 in respect of decree passed in RAE Suit No. 370/581 of 2007 dated 6th January 2025 and consequential orders dated 11th July 2025 and 15th July 2025, in the same set of facts, save and except the change that in RAE Suit No. 371/582 of 2007, the original tenant was Abbas Lalji and the Suit premises is premises No. 31; whereas in Writ Petition No. 10040 of 2025, the original tenant was Aziz Lalji and the Suit premises is premises No.34.
4. Since identical questions of fact and law arise for determination, both the Petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
5. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are hereinafter referred to in the capacity in which they were arrayed before the Trial Court in R.A.E. Suit No. 371/582 of 2007, and Writ Petition No. 10039 of 2025 is considered a representative case.
6. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts leading to these Petitions can be summarised as under:
6.1 The Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956. Abbas Lalji, whose, unknown heirs and legal representatives were impleaded as Defendant No.1; represented by the Registrar of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai, was the tenant in respect of the Premises No. 31, situated at third floor of Navsari Building, D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai (“the Suit premises”).
6.2. Abbas was paying monthly rent of Rs.1455/-. Abbas expired on 19th April 1988. The tenancy of late Abbas came to be terminated vide Notice 4th November 2003.
6.3 Asserting that the Plaintiff had not known who were the heirs and legal representatives of late Abbas and nobody turned up to claim the tenancy rights in respect of the Suit premises, after the demise of Abbas, the landlord instituted a Suit against unknown heirs and legal representatives of late Abbas and Defendant No.2; to whom the Suit premises was allegedly illegally and unlawfully sub-let by late Abbas.
6.4 It was, inter alia, asserted that the Suit premises was sub-let to Defendant No.2 without the knowledge and consent of the Plaintiff. Defendant No.2 was in exclusive use, occupation, possession and control of the Suit premises. Consequently, the late, Abbas and his unknown heirs and legal representatives have not been using the Suit premises for the purpose for which it was let, for a continuous period of six months prior to the institution of the Suit. Eviction of t
