Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
K.R.SHRIRAM, J
Mrs.Mehrunissa w/o. Abdul Razzaque Khan, Iqbal s/o. Abdul Razzaque Khan – Appellant
Versus
Smt.Sharada R.Adyanthaya, Hozaifa Shoeb Contractor – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.64 OF 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.L.Palan, Ms.J.P.Thakkar
For the Respondents: Ms.Kavita A.Shah
The absence of formal agreements and documentation precludes a claim of lawful tenancy under the Bombay Rent Act despite claims of long-term possession.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Rent Act, 1947 - Section 15-A - The application concerns the claim of sub-tenancy by the plaintiff who asserts possession since 1958, asserting rights under the Bombay Rent Act. The appellate court found insufficient evidence of continuous possession to confer victim's status as a tenant. (Paras 1 - 29)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court reviews whether the appellate court acted outside its jurisdiction or committed irregularities. No jurisdictional error found. (Paras 27 - 29)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed lawful possession of sub-tenancy since 1958 based on verbal agreement and continuous occupation but lacked formal lease or documentation to substantiate this claim.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found the plaintiff failed to prove necessary elements for recognition as a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act. No evidence of proper tenancy agreements were submitted.
Issues: Central issues included the nature of the plaintiff's possession, the existence of formal agreements for tenancy, and the implications of document suppression.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for proper documentation and rejected the plaintiff's assertion based predominantly on oral statements; the burden of proof lay with the plaintiff, which was not fulfilled.
Result: Civil Revision Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1 The applicants are legal heirs of the original applicant (the original plaintiff) who had filed a RAD Suit No.2515 of 1989 seeking a declaration that he is the lawful original sub-tenant or deemed tenant in respect of the suit premises. The suit premises is very small admeasuring 8 feet in length, 2feet deep and 6 feet in height (suit premises) and is situated outside one Bharat Hindu Hotel situated at Shop No.16 in Readymoney Building No.2 which was later called Al- Hafiz Building No.2, 26, Clare Road, Byculla, Mumbai-400 008 (said premises). It is the case of the applicant that he was carrying on business in the name and style `Khan Bread Shop' and he was the sole proprietor. The suit premises was an alcove in the road side of the said premises. One may even call it a stall.
2 The respondent no.1 was the proprietor of Bharat Hindu Hotel and legal heir of the original tenant of the said premises. Originally one Ramanna Shetty was the tenant of the said premises. After Ramanna Shetty's demise, his wife Meenakshi Heggadathi became the tenant and later on the respondent no.1 who was their daughter became the tenant in respect of the said premises where business of Bharat Hindu Hotel was being carried on.
For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred to by the original description in the trial court, i.e., applicant is the plaintiff and respondent no.1 is the defendant. Respondent no.2 is referred to as Respondent no.2. The defendant and respondent no.2 are collectively referred to as respondents.
3 It is the specific case of the plaintiff that in or about 1958 he took the suit premises, which is basically an alcove in the said premises from Ramanna Shetty at a monthly rent of Rs.90/- and that Ramanna Shetty was however, not issuing any rent receipts in his favour. The plaintiff thereafter has said that after Ramanna Shetty's demise, when his wife Meenakshi became the tenant, the plaintiff was paying monthly rent of Rs.150/- but the said Meenakshi was also not issuing any receipts in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter from 1981 or there about, the plaintiff started paying Rs.300/- per month which was increased to Rs.350/- in 1983. Even at that stage nobody issued any rent receipts to the plaintiff. From 1983 or thereabout the plaintiff started depositing the rent in the bank account of defendant upto end of March-1989. The plaintiff was in possession of slip books from April 1988 till end of April-1989. The plaintiff however, had in his possession Shop and Establishment Certificate since the year 1973 onwards and he also got telephone installed in the suit premises in his name and had various municipal licenses to show that he was in exclusive occupation and possession of the suit premises. The plaintiff has also stated that he has lost, mis-placed documents from 1958 to 1980 and the same are not traceable.
4 On or about 30.6.1989, the defendant and her son Subanna Shetty approached the plaintiff and asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises. The plaintiff declined and went to the police and lodged a complaint. On 1.7.1989 the plaintiff filed the present suit. According to the plaintiff he is a protected lawful sub- tenant of the defendant under Section 15-A of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947, (Bombay Rent Act) in respect of the suit premises.
5 The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement through her son and Constituted Attorney one Ramrathan Adyanthaya. The defendant has denied the claim of the plaintiff of lawful sub-tenancy or deemed tenancy in respect of the suit premises. The defendant has also denied that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit premises since 1958. The stand of the defendant was that the plaintiff was in occupation of the suit premises by virtue of a conducting agreement and the latest conducting agreement was dated 1.9.1983 for a period of 11 months and extended upto 30.6.1989. It is also the case of the def
