Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S.G. Mehare, J.
Rajendra Bansilal Chaudhari and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Lilakant Madku Chaudhari and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Revision Application No.201 of 2016
Decided on 3.11.2023
(A) Precedent – Ratio decidendi is a point in a case that determines judgment or principle that case establishes – Ratio decidendi is a legal rule derived from and consistent with those parts of legal reasoning within a judgment on which outcome of case depends – It is normally used to refer to some binding rule found in a decided case which later Court cannot generally question – Facts of two cases cannot be similar and observations pertinent to the facts cannot be binding in other cases, though similar laws are attracted, reasons for arriving at a decision are binding – Principle on which earlier case was decided is binding – Meaning of ‘ratio decidendi’ is reason for deciding – One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases, even when same principles are applied in each case to similar facts. (Paras 45 and 47)
(B) Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 28 – Eviction – Bonafide need and non-user by tenant – Suit premises was not used from 1994 – Deceased tenant was a convict for 14 years – Act of 1947 has provided that tenancy is transferable by succession – Landlord-tenant relationship does not cease merely on death of tenant – Suit was correctly filed under Act of 1947 – A landlord has been running pillar-to-post for last twenty-five years to recover possession of a small piece of plot – No specific oral evidence was required to determine questions as mostly facts were admitted and legal objections were raised – This was a second round of litigation – Sending landlords again to Civil Court would be unjust to landlord – There must be a full stop somewhere to such litigations – Impugned judgment and decree of First Appellate Court quashed and set aside and judgment and decree of trial Court restored. (Paras 31, 50, 52 and 53)
Result: Civil revision application allowed.
JUDGMENT
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. The landlords have impugned the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court, passed in Civil Appeal No.24 of 2007, dated 15.06.2016.
3. The facts giving rise to the dispute were that the suit premises was used to run a
hotel. The landlord purchased the suit premises (20 x 20) ft with tenant Sukhalal (for short, the tenant). He had been the tenant since 1975. The tenant was unmarried. The respondent nos.1 to 3 are the sons of three sisters of the tenant, and the deceased respondent No. 4 was his mother. It was a specific case of the landlords that after purchasing the suit premises, they and the earlier landlord met the tenant and told him that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit premises. The suit premises was kept unused from 1994. The tenant was of their caste, his physical condition was deteriorating, and he was living there alone. Hence, the landlord did not ask him to vacate the suit premises. In his last days, he was staying alone in the suit premises. After his death, respondent nos. 1 to 3 started cleaning the suit premises and had held the possession.
4. The landlords filed a suit against them and the mother of the tenant for eviction for their bona fide need and nonuser by the tenant. The respondent no.4 (dead), though the mother of the tenant, did not acquire the tenancy rights. After the death of the tenant, the tenancy was automatically ceased. Respondents nos. 1 to 3 were the trespassers.
5. The respondents appeared through counsel. However, the record reveals that only respondent nos. 2 and 4 contested the suit. Their main defence was that respondent No. 4 was the mother of the tenant, and respondent no.2 was running the hotel with the tenant. Hence, they inherited the tenancy. The landlords denied the landlord-tenant relationship. Therefore, the Rent Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit.
6. During the pendency of the suit, respondent no.4, the mother of the tenant, died. However, her legal heirs were not brought. The suit against her was abated, but respondent No. 2 stuck up to his defence that since he was running the hotel with the tenant, he acquired the tenancy. He has protection under Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (“Act of 1947”, for short).
7. The learned Trial Court, appreciating the evidence, held respondent No.2, a statutory tenant, as the tenant’s successor and decreed the suit. The respondents had preferred the appeal before the District Judge (“the First appellate Court”, for short). The first appellate Court held that the plaintiffs, though, joined respondents as a party to the suit, the suit essentially was filed against the mother of the tenant. Hence, the suit was maintainable. The first appellate Court further held that the suit abated as the legal heirs of respondent no.4, who were statutory tenant, were not brought and allowed the appeal.
8. The landlords, against the judgment of the first appellate Court, approached this Court in a Revision. This Court concurred with the judgment of the first Appellate Court. The landlords went in appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court remitted the case back to the learned first appellate Court.
9. The learned First Appellate Court, after the remand, had framed the following two points for determination;
(i) Whether the suit was maintainable before Rent Court?
(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs interference?
10. The learned first appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were not considering any defendants as their tenants. The learned first Appellate Court, relying on the ratio laid in the case of Laxmidas Morarji (D) By Lrs v Miss Bhorse Darab Madan 2009 SAR (Civil) 1030, held that it would have to be held that the trial Court was not justified in entertaining the suit under Bombay Rent Act. The ratio laid down in the case Babulal Bhuramal and An
(1) Landlord-tenant relationship does not cease merely on death of tenant.(2) Ratio decidendi – One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases, even ....
The court established that only family members as defined by the Bombay Rents Act can inherit tenancy rights, and that the landlord-tenant relationship must exist at the time of filing for eviction.
The heritable rights of the statutory tenant are governed by the provisions of Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and the rights in the tenanted property can only flow in favor of heirs as p....
A person claiming tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act must prove substantial residence with the tenant as a family member, which the applicant failed to establish.
Successors of statutory tenants under the Rent Act do not inherit liability but continue under existing obligations, ensuring landlords retain their rights for eviction despite tenant succession.
Important Point : A person claiming tenancy rights under Section 5(11)(c) must demonstrate both a close familial relationship and substantial cohabitation with the original tenant.
The rights of statutory tenants under the DRC Act are confined to specific heirs designated by law, preventing broader claims to tenancy inheritance.
The Rent Court has comprehensive jurisdiction over claims relating to both recovery of possession and injunctions in landlord-tenant disputes under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
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
