9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 1066 - SC - Indian LawsRights over the tenancy - claim of the appellants that Dinshaw solely acquired the tenancy rights through the Wills of Bomanji and Daulatbai - it was contended that the Will of Daulatbai was not probated and no right is asserted by such a Will. Even if reliance is placed on the Will of Daulatbai it clearly states that only nursery business and not the tenancy is bequeathed to Dinshaw. - Held that - the transfer dated September 18 1981 by the BMC in favour of Dinshaw Irani based on the letter dated October 25 1961 is illegal and the reliance on the same by BMC is misplaced. Transfer of tenancy by BMC in the name of Dinshaw is illegal and void ab initio. Consequently all the events that follow being the surrender of part of the tenancy by Dinshaw to BMC in lieu of the new plot allotted to him are also rendered void ab initio. Since the lease of the 1152 sq. mts executed by BMC in favour of Dinshaw is rendered void ab initio the construction by the appellants on the said plot is also illegal. The position as it exists today is that the remaining portions of Irani Wadi have been acquired by the BMC; and on the other portion the structure erected by Dinshaw exists and the portion being the residential bungalow occupied by the respondents may also be acquired by BMC in due course.
Issues Involved:
1. Rights over the tenancy. 2. Validity of the judgment and order of the High Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Transfer of tenancy by BMC to Dinshaw Irani. 4. Moulding of relief by the High Court in light of subsequent events. 5. Entitlement of respondent Nos.1 to 5 to five flats. Detailed Analysis: 1. Rights Over the Tenancy: The appellants argued that leasehold tenancy rights can be bequeathed, contrary to the Trial Court's holding that "tenancy rights cannot be bequeathed." The Court discussed existing jurisprudence, noting that tenancy rights generally devolve according to the ordinary law of succession unless otherwise provided by statute. The Court cited several precedents, including Gian Devi Anand vs. Jeevan Kumar & Ors. (1985) and State of West Bengal & Anr. vs. Kailash Chandra Kapur & Ors. (1997), which support the position that tenancy rights can be inherited or bequeathed in the absence of specific statutory provisions to the contrary. 2. Validity of the Judgment and Order of the High Court: The appellants challenged the High Court's judgment on the grounds that it exceeded its powers under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that appellate courts can take note of subsequent events that have a direct bearing on the relief claimed, as established in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs. The Motor and General Traders (1975) and other precedents. 3. Transfer of Tenancy by BMC to Dinshaw Irani: The Court found the transfer of tenancy by BMC in favor of Dinshaw Irani to be illegal and void ab initio. The purported "consent letter" dated October 25, 1961, used to justify the transfer, lacked legal validity and did not amount to a relinquishment of rights by the original plaintiffs. The Court noted that objections to the transfer were raised and not properly addressed by BMC, which acted in bad faith. The High Court's findings on the lack of bona fides in BMC's conduct were upheld. 4. Moulding of Relief by the High Court: The High Court's decision to mould the relief by allotting five flats to respondent Nos.1 to 5 was upheld. The Court noted that the appellants were aware of the risks and consequences of their actions during the pendency of the suits and appeals. The principle that courts can take cognizance of subsequent events to mould relief was reaffirmed, citing Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul vs. Keshwar Lal Choudhury (1941) and other cases. 5. Entitlement of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 to Five Flats: The High Court's decision to allot five flats to respondent Nos.1 to 5, representing their 6/15th share, was upheld. The Court found no merit in the appellants' challenge to this allocation, noting that the appellants were receiving more than their share relative to the respondents, who represent branches of two brothers. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, with the Supreme Court affirming the High Court's judgment and order. The transfer of tenancy by BMC to Dinshaw Irani was declared illegal and void ab initio, and the High Court's moulding of relief to allot five flats to respondent Nos.1 to 5 was upheld. The Court emphasized the importance of equity and the ability of courts to consider subsequent events in delivering justice.
|
