Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
M.S.SHAH, D.A.MEHTA, JJ
SAROJBEN WD/O MANGALBHAI SOMABHAI VAGHRI – Appellant
Versus
RAMJI MANDIR TRUST – Respondent
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 1080 of 2002 | LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 1159 of 2004 | LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 1160 of 2004 | LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 1161 of 2004 | LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No 1162 of 2004
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR MURALI N DEVNANI
For the Respondents: MR YATIN SONI
Tenants have the right to obtain essential services, with the court reinforcing the need for summary inquiries under tenancy provisions without lengthy litigation.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Section 23-A - Tenants' right to get electricity supply - The court ruled on the permissible non-consenting relation between landlords and tenants concerning essential services - Finding that appellants rightfully alleged tenancy based on long-term occupation. (Paras 2.1, 2.3, 5, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction of Deputy Collector - Necessity for prima facie assessment of tenancy; the inquiry held should not delve into conclusive findings. The law supports summary proceedings under Section 23-A to address timely essential service provision without prolonged legal disputes. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(C) Agricultural Land Definition - The definition under Section 5[8] of the Bombay Rent Act prevents affirmative applicability concerning agricultural lands in tenant disputes. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, claiming to be long-term tenants, were subjected to opposition by their landlords over essential electricity supply leading to appeals against a single judge’s order that set aside the preceding collector's approval under the Bombay Rent Act.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that appellants showed prima facie evidence of tenancy and the learned Single Judge erroneously disregarded concurrent findings.
Issues: Clarification around tenants’ rights concerning essential services versus land ownership is central, particularly regarding the agricultural land classification.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized summary proceedings for granting tenant rights to obtain electricity supply, with concurrent findings affirmatively supporting the appellants’ claims.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGEMENT
(Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) These appeals are directed against common judgment and order dated 4th October, 2001 of the learned Single Judge allowing Special Civil Application Nos.4280 to 4294 of 2001, by which, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the common order dated 25th January, 2001 and another order dated 19th March, 2001 passed by the Deputy Collector, Nadiad under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 [ for short " Bombay Rent Act "]
- permitting the appellants to get electricity supply in the premises occupied by the appellants and belonging to the respondents.
- .RS 2 #.The facts leading to filing of these appeals are as under :
2.1The appellants made applications before the Collector under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act stating that the appellants are tenants and occupants of the properties situated at Dakor, Taluka Thasara being Municipal properties Nos.596, 591, 600, 589, 600/2, 594, 599, 593, 592, 598, 597/1 and 509. The appellants are residing in the above premises for the last more than 60 years. According to the appellants, the respondents Nos.1 to 3 contended before the Collector that the respondents have not permitted the appellants to take the essential services like electricity supply, though demanded several times and though the appellants are desirous of obtaining such electric connection from respondent Gujarat Electricity Board [ for short "G.E.B."] at their own costs individually. However, only on the ground that the respondents were not giving consent required from the owners of the premises under the Indian Electricity Act, the appellants were not getting electricity supply. By the aforesaid orders dated 25th January and 19th March, 2001, the Deputy Collector, Nadiad granted the applications and permitted the appellants to obtain electric supply from the G.E.B. at their own costs and directed the G.E.B. to provide electricity connection in the land bearing Survey No.201 and 203 of Nani Bhagol, Dakor in the above numbered premises by proceeding on the deemed permission of the owners as provided in Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act .
2.2Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein filed Civil Revision Application No.16 of 2001 which came to be dismissed by the learned Asst. Judge, Kheda.
2.3The respondents, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.4280 of 2001 along with cognate matters before this Court, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment under challenge whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the orders of the Deputy Collector as confirmed by the learned Asst.
Judge on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that there was prima facie case to show that the appellants herein are tenants of the suit land in dispute and if they are trespassers, they cannot obtain electricity connection. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that in case, the respondents [appellants herein ] are not in lawful possession and if suit is pending centering around the dispute, the occupants cannot get benefit under Section 23-A of the Act. It is the said judgment which is challenged before us in these Letters Patent Appeals.
#. Mr.Murali Devnani, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when the appellants had gone with the specific case before the Deputy Collector under Section 23-A of the Bombay Rent Act that the appellants are tenants of the respective premises and the Deputy Collector as well as the learned Asst. Judge have accepted the appellants' case, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with concurrent orders passed by the authority and the Court below, when the said orders did not suffer from any jurisdictional error whatsoever. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in CHAMAR RAMJIBHAI KHIMABHAI V. MIRZA MURMAHMMADBHAI AMIRBHAI AND ANOTHER , 2000 [3] GLR 2658 laying
