9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope of High Court's power under Article 227 of the Constitution to interfere with findings of facts by appropriate authorities. 2. Validity of a licence created by a statutory tenant governed by the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, before 1973. Issue-wise Summary: 1. Scope of High Court's Power under Article 227: The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could interfere with the factual findings of the appellate bench of the Court of Small Causes under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Court reiterated that the High Court could set aside findings of fact if there was no evidence to justify such conclusions or if the findings were perverse in law. The principle is well-settled that the High Court should not interfere unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or a flagrant violation of law. The Court cited several precedents, including D.N. Banerji v. P.R. Mukharjee, Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte, and Trimbak Gangadhar Telang v. Ram Chandra Ganesh Bhide, to support this position. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the factual findings of the appellate bench, which had acted within its jurisdiction and had not misdirected itself on law or fact. 2. Validity of Licence Created by a Statutory Tenant: The Supreme Court addressed whether a statutory tenant governed by the Bombay Rent Act, 1947, could create a valid licence before 1973. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court had held that a statutory tenant could not create a valid licence unless the original contractual tenancy explicitly allowed it. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, emphasizing that the statutory tenant's right to create a licence was not necessarily co-terminus with the right to transfer interest. The Court noted that the purpose of the amendment introducing Section 15A was to protect licensees in occupation on 1st February 1973, regardless of whether the tenant had a specific contractual right to create a licence. The Supreme Court held that all licensees created by landlords or tenants before 1st February 1973, who were in actual occupation of premises, would be deemed tenants under Section 15A, irrespective of the original tenancy agreement's terms. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order of the learned single judge of the Bombay High Court. The Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the factual findings and in its interpretation of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Act. The Court clarified that licensees in occupation on 1st February 1973 would be deemed tenants, enjoying the rights granted under the Act.
|
