Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 1326
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M. S. Sonak, J
Smt. Filomena Mudgal (since deceased), widow of Joseph Mudgal, through heirs – Appellant
Versus
Shri Joe Mahindra Monteiro – Respondent
Second Appeal No.101/2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Shukr Usgaonkar
For the Respondents: None
Tenancy rights survive destruction of leased premises if the lease includes the underlying land.
Headnote:(A) Rent Control Act, 1968 - Section 33 - Tenancy rights - The court overruled the decision in Vannattankandy Ibrayi v. Kunhabdulla Hajee, which held that tenancy rights extinguish with destruction of premises; rather, rights survive if lease includes underlying land. (Paras 8, 14, 16)
(B) Jurisdiction - Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief under Rent Control Act; remedies are exclusively vested in Rent Tribunal. (Paras 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were tenants who sought injunction against landlords for destruction of the premises, which collapsed due to alleged actions of the landlords. The trial court dismissed the suit, leading to appeal.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court overruled prior decisions that held destruction of premises terminates tenancy rights; reaffirmed survival of rights if lease includes land.
Issues: Whether tenancy rights survive destruction of premises and whether civil courts have jurisdiction under the Rent Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Tenancy rights are preserved despite destruction of tenanted structures as per amended legal standards; jurisdiction for repairs lies exclusively with the Rent Tribunal.
Result: Second Appeal is partly allowed, injunction granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and context of dispute (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the claim for injunction against interference (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. trial court's dismissal based on destruction of premises (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. formulation of substantial questions for appeal (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. supreme court ruling on the survival of tenancy rights (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 6. jurisdictional issues and ultimate decision of court (Para 24 , 25 , 28) |
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr Shukr Usgaonkar for the appellants. he respondents, though served, were neither present nor represented.
2. he appellants are the original plaintifs, and the respondents are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.131/1998 instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Margao (Trial Court).
3. he appellants instituted the suit for injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the suit premises and/or dispossessing the appellants from the suit premises or blocking their access to the suit premises, or causing loss or damage to the suit premises either by demolishing the same or any portion thereof. he appellants had claimed in the suit that they were the tenants of the suit premises, of which the respondents were the landlords.
4. he appellants amended the suit because it was their case that during the pendency of the suit the suit premises were destroyed due to acts attributable to the respondents. Mr Usgaonkar explained that the suit premises were on the ground loor, and the respondents/landlords occupied the irst loor premises. However, the respondents/landlords demolished/ damaged the irst loor premises, as a result of which the suit premises on the ground loor were exposed to the elements of nature. he suit premises ultimately collapsed, so the appellants had to source alternate premises.
5. By way of amendment, the appellants sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from developing the property surveyed under No.1/5 at Assolna, Salcete, Goa, for any purpose other than to reconstruct the suit premises or to do any additional construction permissible therein. he appellants also sought a mandatory injunction to direct the respondents to reconstruct the suit premises and restore the possession of the reconstructed premises to the appellants.
6. he Trial Court, by Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2009, dismissed the suit with costs. he Trial Court disbelieved the appellants' case about the suit premises being destructed due to any acts attributable to the respondents. he Trial Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vannattankady Ibrayi v/s. Kunhabdulla Hajee, (2001) 1 SCC 564 held that once the tenanted premises are destroyed, the right to tenancy stands extinguished. he Trial Court ultimately held that the suit was not maintainable as the suit premises did not exist.
7. he appellants appealed by instituting Regular Civil Appeal No.145/2009 in the District Court-IV, South Goa at Margao. By Judgment and Decree dated 19.05.2010, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with costs by upholding the indings recorded by the Trial Court.
8. his Second Appeal was admitted on 05.10.2011 on the following substantial question of law:-
“Whether the reliance placed by the Courts below on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vannattankandy Ibrayi ((2000) 1 SCC 564) to hold that as the suit premises had been destroyed due to natural causes, the Appellant's tenancy right had extinguished, was misplaced in light of the Appellant's clear pleadings and evidence to the efect that the respondents had actively caused the demised premises to collapse during the heavy rains ?”
9. By further order dated 17.03.2023, an additional substantial question of law was formulated, and the same reads as follows:-
“Whether in view of the later decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shaha Ratansi Khimji and Sons Vs Kumbhar Sons Hotel Private Limited and others [(2014) 14 SCC 1], the impugned decrees, which are based upo
