Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Chavan R.C., J.
Da’ Cunha Associates Private Limited —Applicant
versus
Dilip Jhangiani & Ors. —Respondent
Civil Revision Application No. 583 of 2008
with Civil Application No. 217 of 2010
Decided on 28-7/8-9-2010
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:S.U. Kamdar, Sr. Cou. with Vishal Kanade, Ms. Pooja Patil, Vinay Bandivadekar & Amit Mehta i/b Mahimtura, Advocate..
For the Respondent Nos 1 to 4:V.A. Thorat with P.S. Dani, Karim Vakil, A. Dasgupta, Vaibhav Sugadare, Ravi Kadam & Ms. Kusum Mourya i/b Basant Tilokani, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
If ejectment is sought on grounds which are not personal to tenant, but which concern premises themselves, landlord can sue for ejectment of tenant and subtenant together.
Headnote:(i) Interpretation of Statute—It is settled canon of interpretation that same expression used at different places in same piece of legislation must be given same meaning wherever it is used. (Para 34)
(ii) Tenancy—Eviction—Maharashtra Rent Control Act 1999—Sections 3 and 24—Eviction decree—Upon determination of interest of a tenant in premises, sub-tenant would become direct tenant of landlord but only in certain circumstances and not always—If ejectment is sought on grounds which are not personal to tenant, but which concern premises themselves, landlord can sue for ejectment of tenant and subtenant together—Since protection of Rent Act does not apply to premises, relationship will be governed by provisions of Transfer of Property Act and under Section 111 (c), termination of tenancy brings about termination of sub-tenancy as well—Decree for applicant’s ejectment cannot be faulted. (Paras 35 to 44)
Result: Revision applications dismissed.
Chavan R.C., J.—This Civil Revision Application is directed against judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of Court of Small Causes reversing judgment of the trial judge dismissing landlord’s suit and granting decree of applicant’s ejectment.
2. Facts which are material for deciding this Civil Revision Application are as under:
The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (original plaintiffs) are the owners of the property known as “Elysium Mansion”, 7, Walton Road, Colaba, Mumbai=400 005. Premises known as Office No. 9 on the West Wing of 4th floor of said building admeasuring 970 square feet are the subject-matter of these proceedings. They were let out to Sterling General Insurance Company Limited. On 18th June, 1969 said Sterling General Insurance Company Limited gave these premises on licence to the present applicant. On 30th October, 1969, the applicant claims to have acquired from Indian Cotton Mills Federation a licence in respect of even the remaining 508 square feet of the West Wing on the 4th floor known as Office No.10 (not a subject-matter of these proceedings) and thus occupies in all 1475 square feet area on the West Wing, which, according to applicant, constitutes one premises.
3. Respondent No.5 (original defendant No.1) Oriental Insurance Company Limited is successor of Sterling General Insurance Company Limited and is a Public Sector Corporation having a paid up share capital of more than Rs. 100,00,000/-, and therefore in view of provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Maharashtra Rent Act’) does not have the protection of the Rent, Act.
4. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit before the Court of Small Causes for ejectment of applicant, who was in occupation and the defendant No.5 Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the tenant, from premises known as Office No.9. The learned Trial Judge upheld the applicant’s contention that since applicant was not shown to be all entity excluded from Protection of the Rent Act, a decree could not be passed against it and dismissed the suit. The Appellate Bench reversed this by its impugned judgment.
5. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for applicant as well as the respondent Nos. 1 to 4—the landlords. The decree is assailed on three counts: first, that the decree is inexecutable, as it is in respect of property which is not sufficiently identifiable; secondly, the pleas in plaint were not sufficiently clear on identification of suit premises & the Plaintiff’s affidavit dated 4th September, 2004 was construed as a pleading without affording to applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent, and lastly and most importantly, that the Appellate Bench erred in holding that applicant did not have the protection of Rent Act, misconstruing the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submitted that even if respondent No.5, the original tenant, is held to have no protection of the Rent Act, since applicant was a licensee, who was deemed to be tenant under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel And Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bombay Rent Act’) upon termination of his tenancy, he would become direct tenant of the landlord under section 14 of the Bombay Rent Act. Once the applicant is held to be the tenant of the landlord, since applicant is not excluded from protection of the Maharashtra Rent Act by operation of section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Act, applicant’s ejectment would have to be sought only by invoking provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Act.
6. The learned Counsel for both the parties relied on a number of judgments in support of their respective contentions.
7. First, I would deal with the contention that a decree could not be passed because the premises are not sufficiently identifiable. For this purpose the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant relied on Judgment in Nahar Singh v. Homa
