2007 Supreme(SC) 1284

2007(7) Supreme 280
Supreme Court of india
(From Bombay High Court)
C.K. Thakker & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Carona Ltd. — Petitioner
versus
M/s. Parvathy Swaminathan & Sons — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 2805 of 2005
Decided on : 05-10-2007

important points
Section 3 (1) (b) of Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is not ultra vires.
Section 2 of SICA would not operate as a bar to eviction proceedings even if the company was sick.

Headnote:(a)Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Section 3 (1) (b) – Courts below were right in upholding the validity of the provision and in proceeding to decide the matter on merits in view of the decision in M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. (Paras 9 and 13 to 15)

       AIR 2002 Bom 65 – Approved.

       (b)Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Section 3 (1) (b) – Tenancy determined wef 31.3.2001 after due notice, on which date the paid up share capital of the Company was more than one crore – Therefore Small Causes Court was right in proceeding with the matter and in passing the decree of eviction against the tenant.(Para 18)

       (c)Sick Industrial Companies (Special; Provisions) Act, 1985 – Section 22 – Eviction proceedings initiated by landlord was maintainable even if the Company was sick – Section 22 would not operate as a bar to such proceedings.(Para 19)

       (1992) 3 SCC 1 – Relied upon.

       (d)Words and Phrases – Jurisdictional fact – Stated simply, the fact or facts upon which the jurisdiction of a Court, a Tribunal or an Authority depends can be said to be a ‘jurisdictional fact’ – If the jurisdictional fact exists, a Court, Tribunal or Authority has jurisdiction to decide other issues; otherwise a Court, Tribunal or Authority cannot act – It is also well settled that a Court or a Tribunal cannot wrongly assume existence of jurisdictional fact and proceed to decide a matter – The underlying principle is that by erroneously assuming existence of a jurisdictional fact, a subordinate Court or an inferior Tribunal cannot confer upon itself jurisdiction which it otherwise does not possess. (Paras 21 and 23)

       (1950) 2 All ER 211; (1819) 1 B&B 432; 159 SW 2nd 35; 1959 Supp (1) SCR 733; (1962) 2 SCR 947 – Relied upon.

       (e)Words and Phrases – Adjudicatory fact – An ‘adjudicatory fact’ is a ‘fact in issue’ and can be determined by a Court, Tribunal or Authority on ‘merits’, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties – True, it is very difficult to distinguish ‘jurisdictional fact’ and ‘fact in issue’ or ‘adjudicatory fact’; nonetheless the difference between the two cannot be overlooked. (Para 2)

       (f)Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Section 3 (1) (b) – Appellant Company was having ‘paid up share capital’ of more than one crore, not only when the notice was issued and tenancy was determined but also when the suit for possession was instituted – Only a resolution was passed by the Board of Directors to reduce ‘paid up share capital’ from Rs.8.20 crores to Rs.41 lakhs (less than Rs.1 crore), but it was not approved by BIFR – All the Courts were, therefore, right in holding that the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable to the present case. (Paras 32 and 34)

       (g)Administration of Justice – Fairly settled that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of date of institution of the suit – If the plaintiff has no cause of action on the date of the filing of the suit, ordinarily, he will not be allowed to take advantage of the cause of action arising subsequent to the filing of the suit – The courts below were right in holding that the date on which tenancy was determined, the right in favour of the landlord got accrued – Such right could not have been set at naught by the tenant by unilateral act by passing a resolution to reduce ‘paid up share capital’ of the Company. (Paras 37 and 38)

       (1975) 2 SCC 668; (1969) 3 SCR 989 : (1969) 1 SCC 792 – Relied upon.

       (1969) 10 Guj LR 837 – Approved.

       (h)Judicial Review – Tenant not paying rent/mesne profits since more than ten years – Even after institution of the eviction suit only part payment made and again nothing paid for last two years – Appellant tenant not entitled to any equitable relief. (Para 45)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant-tenant was the original defendant whereas the respondent-landlord was the original plaintiff in the suit instituted in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay. The landlord is a partnership firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. It owned a premises, bearing Shop No. 2, situated at ground floor of Plot No. 3, A.M. Ward, Chembur, Govind Road, Mumbai. According to the landlord, the suit premises was let out to the tenant. It was alleged that tenant was not paying rent regularly. It also initiated certain proceedings against the landlord. The landlord did not want the tenant to continue to occupy the suit premises. Accordingly, by a notice dated February 23, 2001, the landlord determined the tenancy with effect from March 31, 2001. In spite of determination of tenancy, the tenant did not hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the landlord. The landlord, therefore, filed a suit in the Small Causes Court, Bombay on April 2, 2001. In a written statement, dated August 1, 2001, the tenant disputed the averments made and allegations levelled by the landlord and contended that it was not liable to be evicted. The Small Causes Court, Bombay, however, passed a decree of eviction against the tenant on December 16, 2002 which was confirmed by a Bench of that Court as also by the High Court.

       Findings of the Court:

       There is no error or infirmity in judgments of the courts below. No interference warranted.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.