9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and Service of Notice to Quit 2. Applicability of Section 5(11)(c) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 3. Interpretation and Application of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution Summary: 1. Validity and Service of Notice to Quit: The Trial Court found that the notice to quit was valid and duly served, and the arrears of rent were properly demanded u/s 12(2) of the Act. The demand was not complied with by the tenant within a month, and the case was governed by the provisions of section 12(3)(b) rather than section 12(3)(a) due to a pending dispute about the fixation of standard rent. The tenant was not entitled to the protection of section 12(3)(b) as he had not paid the rent regularly. 2. Applicability of Section 5(11)(c) of the Act: The High Court held that section 5(11)(c) applies to both residential and business premises, allowing a family member residing with the tenant at the time of death to become a tenant. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that section 5(11)(c) is intended only for residential premises. The intention is to protect family members residing with the tenant from being dispossessed upon the tenant's death, which is irrelevant for business premises. The Court cited the Gujarat High Court's decision in Parubai Manilal Brahmin & Ors. v. Baldevdas Zaverbhai Tapodhan, supporting the view that section 5(11)(c) does not apply to business premises. 3. Interpretation and Application of Section 12(3)(b) of the Act: The Supreme Court referred to its previous decisions in Shah Dhansukhlal Chhaganlal v. Dalichand Firchand Shroff & Ors. and Harbanslal Jagmohandas & Anr. v. Prabhudas Shivlal, which clarified that section 12(3)(b) does not create discretionary jurisdiction for the Court. The tenant must strictly comply with the conditions set out in section 12(3)(b) to claim protection. The Court criticized Chagla C.J.'s interpretation in Kalidas Bhavan Bhagwandas, which suggested a discretionary jurisdiction, as judicial legislation. 4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in interfering with the Small Causes Court's discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court's interference was unwarranted as it did not consider or set aside the findings of the lower court regarding the exercise of discretion. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to interfering with findings of fact unless they are clearly perverse and patently unreasonable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and restored the decree passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court on 22nd January, 1970. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appellants.
|
